Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 12 December 2010

Something to say? Add a new thread.

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aisha: lede

As you said on Talk:Aisha that, "I'm not well versed on this subject", I'll try to give you an overview of the case, there are few personalities in early Islam who are little controversial, in general Sunnis have great veneration for them and Shi'is dispute their righteousness by pointing out their acts which are not taken so well by Sunni majority (although even their books are filled by such narrations e.g. Aisha's envolvement in events preceding to murder of third Caliph and then her as leader of Battle of Camel/Basra). Abu Bakar & his daughter Aisha, Umar & his daughter Hafsa, Uthman & his caln Bani Umayya are few of the contentious figures between the two parties. As most of the Sunni Jurispudence is based on the rulings of first three Caliphs and narrations of Hadith from Aisha their being not reghtious & being controversial is not taken well by Sunns and they try to label any such report as fringe, dubious & some time to extent of blasphemy. Ther have been riots and loss of life over these issues from start of Islamic days continuing till today (if you are aware of recent Kuwait & Bahrain fiasco against Shi'is).

Are Shi'a fringe?
Yes and no!
10–20% of the world's Muslims are Shi'a, they may number up to 200 million as of 2010. The Shi'a majority countries are Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain. They constitute 36.3% of entire local population and 38.6% of local Muslim population of Middle East. Shi'a Muslims constitute over 35% of the population in Lebanon, over 45% of the population in Yemen, 20–40% of the population in Kuwait, over 20% in Turkey, 10–20% of the population in Pakistan, and 15–19% of Afghanistan's population. Nations with populations of more than one million Shi'as include (in descending order): Iran, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Lebanon, and Tanzania.

For more details: Shi'a–Sunni relations, Persecution of Shia Muslims

Feel free to contact me in case of any question or clarifications.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. That is a very succinct and neutral explanation of what appears to be an exceedingly difficult issue that has caused strife all over the world. More importantly, it reflects well upon you as an editor, and I hope that you stick around and continue to help out on that article. Thanks again for taking the time to write that out. — HelloAnnyong 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering about having no response from you over my little essay ;). BTW, we are having great action on Talk:Aisha and little on Aisha. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I said it was rather helpful. As to the Aisha article, I missed a bit of the conversation awhile back and just totally fell behind. As long as there's not any crazy edit warring going on and people are actually talking, I'm happy. — HelloAnnyong 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi HA! I'll be on wiki-break this weekend (fri-sat-sun) and will be active by minimum capacity during next two weeks. If you are active meanwhile can you have watch on article Aisha, it's talk & temp and ANI entry related to IK. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 05:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Leyasu/User:Blackmetalbaz sockpuppet investigation

Although the above failed a CheckUser request, do you think the case justifies a SPI, alone? I know the diffs provided seem circumstantial, but after thinking about it for a while, the similarities between Leyasu and Blackmetalbaz are just too striking - both are from the UK, both focus on petty "disputes" over heavy metal subgenres, both Wikilawyer/attack other editors in the edit summaries, both have a somewhat similar style in their edit summaries, and both attempted to change edits of mine that they had no prior history in editing: the only way they/he would have known was by viewing my "contributions" history page. (their/his edits, of course, were reverted back by another editor. I could provide diffs if you would like to see examples of that.) I'm almost 98% certain that Blackmetalbaz is the banned Leyasu under an active handle. If an investigation proves otherwise, my assumption would be that the guy moved to another UK municipality and slightly modified his style/antics enough not to get admin attention again. In my 5+ years of Wiki'ing, this is probably only my 2nd or 3rd SPI request. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sirposhboy

Hi, just a quick query regarding the Sirposhboy SPI: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sirposhboy/Archive Even though the users might not be deliberately avoiding scrutiny do we total up all the warnings issued in such a situation or not? Both accounts have received very strong warnings, therefore if we conclude it is the same user would a ban not be appropriate here? Would be interested to know how things work in such a situation as I tend to find quite a few sockpuppets. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They haven't received "very strong warnings", they've received the normal escalated warnings. Sirposhboy edited on Oct 26-27, and then there was nothing until Nov 15, when the IP edited. And then it went dark. There's not nearly enough activity here to warrant a ban; 3RR generally fizzles after a few days, and vandalism spread this far apart wouldn't hold. Honestly I would leave it alone for now, but keep an eye on the situation in case things change. — HelloAnnyong 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to Give Thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To: HelloAnnyong, This is the time of year when we give thanks, so Thank You HelloAnnyong for all your help this past summer. This is the first of many Admin stars.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! Always glad to lend a hand. — HelloAnnyong 05:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your warnings to user(s)

Thanks for the nicely worded warnings you supplied to Editermaster12345 and the associated IP. --Orlady (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow Editor

I understand you found that this editor was not logging in when making edits. Please note the derogatory comment he made here about me under his IP, where he has pretend to be someone else. Please read the edit summary. What action can I take against this, because this is clearly not acceptable under wikipedia rules. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the edit summary from that edit. — HelloAnnyong 16:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What should I do. It's clear, this editor is trying to WP:GAME the system? I have reported him before. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In what capacity is the editor gaming? — HelloAnnyong 16:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretending to be someone else. Edit warring under another IP. Leaving abusive messages under his IP etc. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor was blocked after you made that post, so I'm going to consider this issue closed. — HelloAnnyong 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Few more linkspam articles on topic of debuggers

Hi HelloAnnyong, you pointed me to this "linkspam/notability" problem a while ago. I hit few more pages on debuggers, that seem to have the same problem as the List of tools for static code analysis article. I guess you have some special monitoring for this in place, and I would like to ask you add the following articles to that: Debugger and Debugger front end. Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All registered editors have the ability to keep a watchlist. You list a bunch of articles and you can track changes made to them. If you want to use yours, read Help:Watching pages. — HelloAnnyong 12:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would following change be considered advertising only

Hi HelloAnnyong , would the following change be considered advertising only? And , what is the respective WIKI policy against that ? Link would be good . See this. Since I am still somewhat reluctant to end up in discussions/fights, I'd appreciate a corrective measure by you. Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably advertising. But as I told you before, I'm not going to be your meatpuppet. Be bold and revert it yourself. For what it's worth, that editor also added those links to another article, and they were reverted for being spam. — HelloAnnyong 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive sock

At the time of posting this SPI, the anon IP was running riot, reverting legit edits at will. I reported it as an obvious sock of a blocked account to get immediate admin attention and have it blocked too. Obviously, when the account was eventually blocked for disruption, this SPI became redundant. RashersTierney (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it should have been reported to WP:AIV for more immediate action; SPI is comparatively too slow to stop an active vandal. — HelloAnnyong 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So it would appear. Best. (btw thanks for tidy at SPI) RashersTierney (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I did report this to AIV. RashersTierney (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You reported 115.78.224.215, and they were blocked for 7 days. This case was about 115.78.227.155, a different IP. Anyway, it's over and done with. — HelloAnnyong 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. My intention was to report the other IP as a sock of the already blocked IP. RashersTierney (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgt Lawyer

I'm sorry for the submission. The names and editing patterns looked so suspicious I assumed the worst. Thank you for clearing it up. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! It looked that way to me as well, but there were some very strange circumstances there. Let me know if anything happens in that area, and I'll pass it along or deal with it as necessary. — HelloAnnyong 17:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sumgait pogrom

Hi HelloAnnyong, thanks for looking into the dispute. I wrote the explanation but you might want to wait for MarshallBagramyan to add his comment so that you see both sides of the argument. Thanks a lot. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Sumgait pogrom

I've been off-Wiki for several days and just saw your 3O. To quote Kipling, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!" Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Yeah, that one isn't easy... — HelloAnnyong 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Monkey on back

Could do with some direct intervention on recent sock issue. RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Um.. what? — HelloAnnyong 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A trolling editor has been following me around the project related to this SPI with which you were involved. RashersTierney (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the new SPI. Best, RashersTierney (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Let me know if any more issues arise. — HelloAnnyong 20:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the old method has been resumed 113.162.170.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Sorry, didn't expect to be back so soon. RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You sure that's the same? I'm not really seeing it.. Blocked. — HelloAnnyong 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Mistywalker

I may be missing something, but here is how I saw the sequence. An editor created the name "Ppmpages" and started a draft article in user space. Someone blocked that name, as the name was too close to the subject of the article. So the editor created a new name "Mistywalker", which would not fall afoul of the username policy. This is exactly what we want to happen. I think "Mistywalker" should be unblocked, unless I'm missing something.--SPhilbrickT 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I saw, Ppmpages wasn't blocked for an advertising name; I was the only one to block them, and that was for sockpuppetry. And no one left a message on their talk page about it being an advertisement name. Further, Mistywalker was created first, at 00:35, November 29, 2010, and then Ppmpages was created later at 19:02, November 29, 2010. The other thing here is that Mistywalker isn't blocked. It seems that the autoblock kicked in because Ppmpages is blocked, and they're both editing from the same IP. (So that proves the sockpuppetry case.) Anyway, I've removed the autoblock so it should be good to go. Let me know if there are further issues. — HelloAnnyong 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the article Misty is working on is called "Precision Vein & Vascular" which is a division of Precision Practice Management. So when I saw that Ppmpages was blocked, I just assumed someone saw that name as too close. My mistake for jumping to a conclusion, but it was probably blockable in any event. The article is not starting out well, but I'll keep an eye on it. Do you know if the sockpuppet concerns arise from these two names, or if there are others? If it is just these two names, I'll AGF that they did not know one shouldn't edit from two different account sin this way, and perhaps they thought it would make sense to have open account with a personal name and another with a corporate name. If there are additional names, it might be a different story. Thanks for removing the autoblock, I'll try to keep an eye on the article.--SPhilbrickT 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. The case was just based on them creating the same user subpage, so yeah, I think they just didn't realize the rules. But yeah, I guess you can keep an eye on it and see what happens. — HelloAnnyong 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI warrented?

I know that you have some expertise in these matters. I'm kind of baffled about when an SPI is and is not warranted and am reluctant to start something of that significance without just cause. Could you take a look at what's going on at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Embox and let me know whether or not starting an SPI is warranted? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be sockpuppetry, but it could also be off-Wiki meatpuppeting. It may be worth a checkuser, if only to discern what's going on. Either way, on that AfD, all of the new accounts can be written off with {{spa}}. — HelloAnnyong 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sikmir. Regards. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rasenfassenblasety, I missed one. See here. Thanks for your help. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Addressed, already by Tiptoety. Sorry for the bother, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries; this case was a good catch either way. — HelloAnnyong 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved your comment

Hope you don't mind. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn! I put it in the wrong place. Thanks for fixing that. — HelloAnnyong 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Muthuwella

another potential sock has appeared...pretty obvious. 124.43.235.205 (talk · contribs) LibStar (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

and this one 124.43.234.170 (talk · contribs)LibStar (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - you should use the {{IP}} template instead of user in this case. But I blocked the first one for block evasion; the second IP isn't really anything so I left it alone for now. If it edits again, though, let me know. — HelloAnnyong 12:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

SameerJaved?

Hi!

Any thoughts on whether Shalalal (talk · contribs) could be another sock of SameerJaved (talk · contribs)? They seem to have made almost identical additions to the same articles (cf. this with this). Gabbe (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's possible. I've opened a request for it. — HelloAnnyong 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorynote

Good call, thanks. Funnily enough, last night I discovered that a Lorynote account had been created on pt.wiki (where Jackiestud is indefinitely blocked) just a few days after this account was created. I'd already asked the blocking Admin there to contact me, and I've let him know about this block. They are luckier than us though, she's hardly edited there at all, clearly too busy here. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Should that fact be added to the archive? Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's sort of beyond the scope of our Wiki. One glance at SUL and anyone can see what's going on. (Actually, the account has also done some editing on es.wiki and fr.wiki.) But being blocked on one Wikiproject doesn't necessarily mean you can't participate in others; for example, Ottava Rima is active on Commons and Wikiversity. — HelloAnnyong 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't even thinking about anything being done elsewhere, and I know that being blocked on one doesn't mean you can't edit elsewhere, just that it is more evidence and should perhaps be noted. But that isn't necessary I gather. How do you look at SUL? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Easiest way is to go to the user's contribs page, scroll down to the bar on the bottom, and click SUL. This is a direct link. — HelloAnnyong 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful. I seem to be still finding my way around the new interface. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry

it was a test Jacob12190 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing politics request for semi-protect

Could you please look at this article again. Roger Scruton was semi-protected after SlimVirgin wrote, "Problems since October 22 with an anon, using various IP addresses (in the ranges 88.104–88.110, and 85.211) removing criticism, reverting other editors, and insulting people on the talk page. He has been doing the same at other articles related to right-wing politics, and is believed to be the banned Yorkshirian (talk · contribs). An SPI report yesterday led to a range block, but the same anon is back at Roger Scruton today. The blocking admin, T Canens, advised that semi-protection of the targeted articles is the best solution".

We had been discussing the issue at "IPs at Talk:Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton". The IPs have been soapboxing on the talk page and insulting other editors, e.g., "Misplaced Pages should not be an exploration of your ignorance.... You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Misplaced Pages.... Your bigotry and intolerance are almost amusing.... I am getting the impression you are delusional.... I am very clearly getting the impression you are delusional.... you are delusional.... As defined by somebody who is delusional?" There are countless examples of this.

TFD (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I was going based on evidence. The page has been untouched for a week. Just because the editor edited there before does not mean they are now. Maybe they decided that it wasn't worth their effort anymore, who knows. There isn't enough recent activity there to justify a protect. If there was any evidence of active socking on that page then I would consider a block, but there isn't. And we don't pre-emptively protect articles, either. As a side note, if you consider it, keeping it unblocked may serve as a honeypot. Not that I advocate acting that way, of course, but just showing you another perspective. — HelloAnnyong 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

IOW an account or fixed IP of a banned user may be blocked, an account or fixed IP that abuses talk page privileges (through soapboxing or abusive comments) may be blocked, but no action may be taken against a dynamic IP that is a sock of a banned user and abuses talk page privileges. TFD (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are we talking about Right-wing politics or Talk:Right-wing politics? I've been meaning the former.. — HelloAnnyong 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

for dealing the sockpuppetry issue at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi. I'm really surprised about User:Someone65 being involved and few others not being. Thanks again. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haiderc_s 04:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetrry

Hi, now I checked the user compare report from Shovon who is trying to ban me for sock puppetry, Im pretty new (almost 1 week) so I dont know all the rules but if correcting the person who is the sockpuppet (gargabook) from an edit they got horribly wrong is bad then Im really sorry I didn't know about this rule, but the edit I made to it isn't Vandalism it was factual and I have never vandalised in Misplaced Pages, but do notice that the main thing I have been doing is removing overpraise from mainly India articles as overpraise is ripe (I got this from googling the IPL when I saw the news about Australia's version of the IPL and noticing the overpraise on it also from the Comm Games 2010 page a while ago) and notice that Shovon is a bigtime Indian editor so maybe an abuse of privilidges or something might be happening--Luke193 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh... I'm going to give him a chance to actually respond, and then take it from there. But it seems like there may not be much evidence, so truth may out. — HelloAnnyong 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you're reviewing the case, you probably might want to compare the wording of the above and the first unblock request. Elockid (Alternate) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Meenas

"DEAR SIR...some people are intentionally behind tribals..specially meenas article,and adding nonsense like they were animal,PLEASE ban those people..like ip address 59.161.47.25 with immediate effect,I will tell you some more people who are intentionally behind tribals and backward people,they are systematically conspiring against backward and innocent tribal people since thousand of years.They are so selfish that u cant even imagine;PLEASE ban 59.161.47.25,THANKS".Bigbrothersorder (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh.. what. What is this in regards to? — HelloAnnyong 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DEAR SIR..please look at tribals..specially meenas and backward peoples article,some selfish people are adding nonsense and abusing tribals n backward people again n again..wat is this nonsense..?,please give your few minutes and check tribals(st),backward people(obc) and sc(dalit) articles.The nonsense people who are intentionally behind tribals are 59.161.47.25,,81.101.116.123,,ban them immediately please,,AND 81.101.116.123,,86.179.144.43,,86.162.140.193,,87.194.22.30,,82.24.107.240,,82.17.249.111 are definitely the SAME person..please ban him immediately for the sake of TRUTH.,,,people assisting him may be ShelfSkewed,,Ohconfucius,,59.161.47.25,,Oldag07,,125.22.95.71,,FOR THE SAKE OF TRUTH/AUTHENTIC HISTORY AND REALITY PLEASE BAN them..atleast for tribal articles.THANKS YOU N WIKIBigbrothersorder (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No.. no, we're not going to do that. — HelloAnnyong 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Hi ! Thanks for the message. --Davide41 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thanks for helping clear out the sockpuppetry issues with LUUWDA. It was my first time reporting such an incident (which I discovered as a result of incivility directed at me). You responded switfly, making me feel that I did the right thing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/69.86.142.139/Archive

Thanks for your comment, I didn't realize how checkusers worked :p I've since looked at WP:CHECKUSER, and that clarified it. dmz 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: SPI Rcool35 still at it

Please take a look at this update, Rcool35 is also using another IP number range to evade his block: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rcool35 Archived investigation: Thank you! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsecure

I've closed this case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! TNXMan 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All the thanks go to you for dealing with it. — HelloAnnyong 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stale CU data

So I was looking at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pohick2 and was wondering: what's the general length of time that CU data is good for? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. — HelloAnnyong 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please double check and comment my corrections at Software visualization

Hi HelloAnnyong. Can you please check and comment the reverts I did here, and the 3-4 preseding edits. Add, revert-by-Ptrb, Add-back, revert-by-Ptrb. And maybe keep eye on this back and forth. Thanks. Ptrb (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You were right on that edit, but you don't really need to point the editor to discuss with me first. In cases like that, you're better off discussing on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar back/forth discussion going on here too Code coverage. I've requested discussion at articles talk page. Would appreciate if you could keep eye on that Code coverage. I guess admins word is stronger than mine. Ptrb (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Stanovc/Whatelsetodo sock

fairly obvious it's him. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is a serial sockmaster, we can be sure he will be back again. Athenean (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is just no stopping this guy . Athenean (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Blah. I've added this to the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, 'ppreciate it. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Letting you know

Thanks for your recent help to me at SPI. I just thought that, as a courtesy, I should notify you of this: . Please don't block the IP. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure that telling them to add to AN from an IP was the right move. In this case WP:OFFER applies, I think. They did the first part (contact an experienced editor), and I think that second part about opening a thread at ANI falls to you to do it, if you agree that the block should be reviewed. On the other hand, the standard offer says "wait six months without sockpuppeting", and for this person it's been.. five days. Maybe a little too soon. But if you really think that the editor deserves another chance, then by all means give it a shot. — HelloAnnyong 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, woops, I guess I'm still in need of more experience, since I didn't know about OFFER until now. (For that reason, it would have been good if you had left them a message about that when you blocked them, as I suggested.) Let me tell you what I think about the five days thing, though. I certainly could be wrong, and I'm unfamiliar with the original history of that editor, but it looks to me like the recent socking that I've been reporting has been a case of good-faith, albeit foolish, attempts to make a clean start, just doing it in all the wrong ways. Anyway, given that I might or might not be wrong about that, and given that what's done is done, I think it will be OK for me to not open an AN thread myself. Let's see what he does, as that will be something of a test of whether or not he "gets it". If I change the instructions to him now, it will just complicate things. I'll keep an eye on it (I'm monitoring AN and ANI anyway, because of another block discussion where I've been commenting), and I'll certainly speak up if and when a thread starts. But I think it will be good in this case to put the onus on him to take the initiative. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Brah sock?

Could this be yet another in the long string? (wikilinks purposely excluded to avoid tipping him off if it is) WuhWuzDat 19:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it. Blocked and tagged. And I opened/close a case for it. — HelloAnnyong 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi there, I've request Get 'Em Girls (album) for semi-protection due to continuous IP vandalism. ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you could train me to become a clerk, or at least show me the ropes of how it works. When reverting vandalism, I've come across a couple users/IPs that seem like they might be Socks to me, but I'm not sure what evidence is needed and what to put in the case. I know that training me to become a clerk would be a bit overkill for my purposes, but it would also mean that if there's ever a need for more, you could grab me :p. Thanks, dmz 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey. To be completely honest, clerks generally have more experience editing on Misplaced Pages, and I don't think a thousand edits is quite enough to get started. We're also not really taking on new clerks right now. In the meantime, I would say keep editing and gain some more experience, and check back in a few months to see what's up. If you're asking about what's required to start a case, that's a different story. In terms of evidence, you need to provide tangible evidence of commonalities between accounts - things like similar edits, similar edit summaries, that sort of thing. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll come back if I have more questions. dmz 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

KentKnight007

Can you please log the block results from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug at the page WP:ARBSCI? Thank you very much for your prompt actions in this matter, -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So done. — HelloAnnyong 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Can anything additional be done about this repeated behavior pattern from this banned user? Can the underlying IP be blocked? -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, they're not on a static IP, so it'd have to be a rangeblock. Problem is that it's a pretty wide range, and there's at least one good IP in there. So no, unfortunately there isn't really much to do in that regard. — HelloAnnyong 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt replies. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice re Delicious carbuncle

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At ANI, BLPN, NPOVN, WT:SCN, and multiple other locations, this user is abusing forumshopping and attempting to game the system in retaliation for my reporting the user to ANI over the user's BLP violations and the user's disruption on the topic of WP:ARBSCI with those selfsame BLP violations. What can be done about this? Should the user be reported for forumshopping-disruption related to WP:ARBSCI? Multiple users have commented that the user's counter-claims have little merit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)