This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You're confident that CharlieMuk was a sockpuppet? I see where the IP-identified user posted similarly at Phoenix Jones but sometimes new users accidentally log out and don't notice it. As well, would you mind taking a look at the dispute there and perhaps chime in as to whether the participants are behaving as they should and in accordance with policy? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The block was for using two accounts, CharlieMuk and User:CharlieInSeattle, not the IPs. Users should use one account to edit a topic area, not several. TN X Man 18:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to see what you linked there but there doesn't seem to be a user page for CharlieinSeattle. This seems like an unusual block (I'm not the only one who thinks so [1]), also given that your validating rationale on review (sockpuppeting) is different from the original admin's block (disruptive editing (including "vandalism?!"). Not to put you out overmuch, but for the sake of transparency, can you clear me up on CharlieMuk's "topic area sockpuppetry" for which you permanently blocked him. Colton Cosmic ( talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence showed the two accounts are the same. As I mentioned, the two accounts both edited the same topic area, which is an impermissible use of multiple accounts. TN X Man 13:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tnxman307, you might want to have a look at User talk:Seblodgett. The master from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seblodgett has just asked for unblocking of his and his students' accounts. Thanks ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 21:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll go through and unblock everyone. I'm reminded of Arrested Development "This is what happens when you don't leave a note!" TN X Man 13:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could run a checkuser on the now-deleted username at Talk:Tim Worstall? He's popped up again twice, so I guess the account creation blocked thing isn't working too well. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 01:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They're hopping IP ranges, so there's not much I can do. Thanks for keeping an eye out, though. TN X Man 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Not like this person's really trying to hide, anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's 'cuhold'. :) T. Canens ( talk) 01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to leave a message to the admin who blocked AA193 ( talk · contribs) but couldn't, I thinks Parsa1993 ( talk · contribs) is a sock of AA193 based on same numbers appearing in their names, shares same nationalistic POV and English, edits articles of same exact region. If you can please do a quick CU to see who this POV pusher is who uses different socks. Thanks.-- 182.177.15.242 ( talk) 02:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to follow up on this is to file a report at WP:SPI. This will keep all of the info in one place and make it easier to track in the future. Please remember that you'll need to include specific diffs as supporting evidence. If you have any questions as you go, please let me know. TN X Man 13:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You recently closed a sockpuppet investigation against User:AnAimlessRoad, [2] who was circumventing his site ban by editing from ip 77.99.63.125. You noted that editor hadn't been active for a couple days, and suggested I refile if he returns. Well, he has. [3] Do you recommend I refile? Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 02:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted an article titles Urimai Kural in august 2009. Now I would like to start the article with fresh content. So Please Unlock the page. Balaji ^{(Let's talk)} 09:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) You're far better off creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT first. Create it, ensure it meets the requirements, source it. Then ask Tnxman307 if he thinks it's ready for prime time. Then he can unlock, and help move if if it's ready ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 11:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi.. thanks for your idea Bwilkins! I have created a draft at Urimai Kural as per your suggestion. So I hope the page now will be unlocked and saved. Balaji ^{(Let's talk)} 18:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read my evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy or did you just skim through it? The only connection between Wikiboer and Meowy is not interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan, but also their interest in relatively obscure topics such as Assyrians and their genocide. Moreover, shared interest in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics does not explain why both of the users vehemently insists on downplaying the Georgian origins of various Georgian institutions and sites.

As I can see, Meowy has had plenty of investigations on his name and I hope that you are not dismissing me just because you don't feel like doing another one. The apparent syndrome of impunity is probably what causes these users to be as combative as they are with me and others on various talk pages.-- Krosenstern ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, those are not obscure topics (at least, not on Wikipedia). I've marked the case for close, not because I "don't feel like doing another one", but rather because I don't see enough evidence that these two accounts are operated by the same person to warrant an investigation. TN X Man 15:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tnxman. I've only filed a couple of SPI reports, and feel pretty uncertain about what's required or even how to go about the process properly; the interface isn't easy to decipher, as you know. But more to the current point, I'm sure you know that apparent "throw-away accounts" that are used for just a day or two are ubiquitous in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Sean.hoyland and I, whose edits tend to support one side of the conflict, and AnkhMorpork, whose edits tend to fall on the opposing side, are all of the opinion that Top of the Tower ( talk · contribs) is the latest example. The account's second edit was this revert of a much-contested "recent flare up" in the topic area; Sean suspects NoCal100 as the sockmaster.

Is this a sufficient basis for asking for a check? If not, I don't see how the topic area can avoid being overwhelmed by day-use and short-term-use and sleeper socks. A check would be appreciated in this specific case, of course, as well as more general guidance. What can we do when a new account shows up in the topic area, and jumps into the thick of the latest "flare up" or controversy article in that topic area, with reverts from the outset, for example? My experience with previous SPI reports has been that just saying, "this doesn't look like a new user; we think it might be a NoCal sock" gets shot down for lack of specificity. But when a few people are creating hundreds of socks, and using them for just 10 - 20 edits over a day or two, what chance is there for anyone to be more specific? How can one compile "behavioural evidence" based on so few edits?

Do we just have to throw up our hands when we see what looks like an instance of this strategy? Do we have to wait until the user has made his ten or twenty edits and moved on? Or is it permissible to ask for a check right away when a new account shows up and makes comments that indicate significant prior experience, for example, or performs reverts at controversial articles in his first few edits? Sorry to be so long-winded in asking, but the problem is so endemic to the topic area that I've thought seriously about just giving up on it, abandoning the topic area entirely. With 1rr restrictions in place on these articles, the effect of one's edits can easily be nullified by this short-term/day-use socking strategy. Trying to contribute to the topic area in a responsible way just seems futile if there's no effective way to respond to it.

Finally, I'll add that although I'm a fairly experienced user by now, I've been very reluctant to file SPIs, because some clerks and checkusers have been very free with off-the-cuff remarks to express an opinion that an SPI has been filed in bad faith, as an attempt to harass a POV opponent, and suchlike. That introduces quite a strong chilling effect, and clerks are never reprimanded for saying such things, even when they're very demonstrably wrong. It's my own opinion that socking is such a tremendous problem for the project that it's just really poor behaviour for anyone to take the least offence at being the subject of an SPI. My own response, the one time someone suggested I might be socking was a very polite, "If you feel you have grounds, please do file an SPI."

Sigh. Sorry to vent; the whole topic is just an extremely frustrating one to me. I've informed the "tower" account of my post here, btw... Any guidance you can offer on any of this will be most appreciated. Thanks, -- OhioStandard ( talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What Ohiostandard said. Special:Contributions/Ron_Cracker is likely to be another disposable sock. To get a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg, just the accounts that have been blocked as confirmed or suspected socks for one sockpuppeteer, NoCal, see User:Sean.hoyland/socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a real solution would only allow editors after some time for ex. 500 edit and one year in the project.-- Shrike ( talk) 11:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, me too, something like that anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think calling editor a sock just because he reverted you, could be considered a personal attack.-- Shrike ( talk) 11:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that needs to change. Picking an editor at random in the topic area and calling them a sock probably has quite a high chance of being accurate by pure chance. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike has her facts wrong: The "Top of the Tower" account didn't revert any of my edits until after I'd posted to its talk with a link to our policy prohibiting multiple accounts. Btw, her comment here has reminded me of a curious exchange she had with an obvious sock, who was subsequently blocked as such. I've posted a query to her talk ( link/ snapshot) to ask about it. No doubt there's a perfectly inoccuous explanation; I'm sure she'll be glad to clear up any confusion there, on her talk. -- OhioStandard ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohio call this user a sock because of the revert that she doesn't agree with, this is personal attack or it was something else.Maybe she should clarify it for us.-- Shrike ( talk) 15:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a man, Shrike, so please mind your pronouns. I'm correct in my understanding that you're a woman, right? --Ohiostandard, 23:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I called Top of the Tower a sock here. That is because my experience tells me that they are not only a sock, but they are likely to be a sock of NoCal100. You appear to be making a habit of standing between editors and socks. You have done it before. You were wrong. I let it pass. Don't do it again, please. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Again if they are sock file a SPI.Throw accusations about other editors are personal attack.-- Shrike ( talk) 18:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Until new editors are allowed to revert on their first edit we must WP:AGF.-- Shrike ( talk) 18:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions. You might be surprised at how many socks are blocked without an SPI. There is a thin line between assuming good faith and playing or being dumb when it comes to obvious socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well ok,like I said earlier the solution is clear I think it should be done via AE Similar to restrictions of Nagorno-Karabakh.-- Shrike ( talk) 14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean, other than your tingling spidey senses, do you have any objective evidence that support your assertions that this is a sock of NoCal100. If so, do you not think it less disruptive if you would present this compelling evidence rather than accusing this user for no purpose? Ankh. Morpork 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to questions you ask me about sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me answer some of OhioStandard's general questions/points first. Filing SPIs can be tough if the sockmaster is creating throwaway accounts. It makes it harder to track behavioral clues and patterns. However, because we try to assume good faith, we can't investigate every new account that shows up. I wish I could offer some hard and fast guidelines of "assume good faith here, suspect socking there".

Secondly, if you feel that anyone working on an SPI (including myself) wasn't helpful, please let me know or post to WT:SPI. We do see cases where different editors on opposite sides of debates will file harassing/pointless SPIs, and yes, they do get frustrating. However, we're still here to help, so let us know if something's wrong. Finally, as the specific request, it's  Likely that Top of the Tower ( talk · contribs) and I Wanna See The Real India! ( talk · contribs) and Ron Cracker ( talk · contribs) are the same. Since they are using multiple accounts to edit the same topic area, I've blocked them. All of the NoCal100 socks are  Stale, so I can't comment on a connection there. TN X Man 15:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What about User:Forevertrue21 and user:Realityneeded?I know the probably stale but maybe you can say something about them?Thanks.-- Shrike ( talk) 15:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Since those accounts haven't edited in months, I think we can let them lie. If they re-activate, let me know. TN X Man 15:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of creating a new article for this recently deceased, and notable, bluesman. See [4] and [5]. However, an article in this same name was deleted by you - I have no problem with that. Previously you were meant to contact the deleting editor to ask permission to create a 'proper' article, but it seems the criteria has changed. I am unsure how to proceed. Do I now have to use another article name (eg. Michael Burks (musician)) ? Help !

Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 12:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. Please read our guide to writing your first article for good advice on getting started. TN X Man 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - a new article is now available at Michael Burks - if you have the time, interest or inclination. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! TN X Man 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tnxman307,

I requested for a sockpuppet investigation for Iaaasi on 04 may, 2012, which is still open without having commented on it by any administrator. User:Jaro88slav of the suspected sockpuppet isn't blocked yet, and there is a new user , User:MalusDacus111, who I think is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi's, for which I still can't ask for any investigation as even the older case is still open.-- Nmate ( talk) 12:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tnxman307,

Would you please take a look at this unblock request on Egg Centric's talk? They were blocked indef for socking but have stated their case which seems to be within bounds of policies. I'm not asking for you to review the block but instead to see whether checkuser should be applied here. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a note there. TN X Man 15:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tnxman,

You ran the checks here, and now I see that there's another related case here. I'm inclined to think that they're the same person, but I don't know why the master in the second case wouldn't have shown up before. Unless they're unrelated, of course. If you wouldn't mind, please take a look at the second case when you get a chance and let me know if it's worth another check. Thanks! ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Elmer's SPI. Cheers! TN X Man 20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Egbert Obama ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Việt Nam Dân Chủ Tiến Bộ Đảng ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Always try to add non exist party in List of Vietnamese political parties, Template:Vietnamese political parties and Democratic Progressive Party (disambiguation) event already be ban in vi and zh by doing so. Sorry I don't use to en wiki yet so I don't yet know where to put this so I already put this here if that wrong place please let me now where is right place. Sorry for my english skill. Tnt1984 ( talk) 05:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think its classic Cui bono but here is something interesting [ [6]] its like he anticipated this.You don't feel that all this evidence is enough for duck test?-- Shrike ( talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

are you out of your mind? i follow your user pages and talk pages and edits. just like now. anticipated my foot. you're becoming desperate.--  altetendekrabbe  20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You again continue your personal attacks.Stop it!(Also that nice that you admitted that you hounding me)-- Shrike ( talk) 20:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

no i am tracking your edits to build a case against you. don't worry, i will not get into edit war with you at all.--  altetendekrabbe  20:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And now he admits of WP:BATTLE nice.-- Shrike ( talk) 20:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

you are tag-teaming with ankhmorpork and you know it.--  altetendekrabbe  20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if i'm wrong, but I you want a war fine by me as long as you do it on your own talk page. Don't mess up this gentleman's talk page. If any of you need support on this topic, I'm an expert at it (I used to have great wars with Users). Apologies to Tnxman307 and you guys if i'm wrong. My User Page: My Talk Page: My Contributions

Since you often take part in SPI cases I figured that you'd be able to answer this question on policy. Can a syop with CU tools perform CUs on accounts on a regular basis at the email request a single editor? In other words, the editor requesting the CU does not file an SPI but rather, contacts a Syop by email and asks for a CU and the Syop acts on that request regularly. Is that appropriate?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the best answer I can give you is "it depends". (Also, I should note that whatever I say here only applies to my own experiences -I can't speak for other checkusers.)

First of all, the official policy is here.

More practically, are checks run by email request? Yes, it happens occasionally and not on a regular basis. However, my preference is always to keep as much information on-wiki as possible. I like to have other people review my work -keeping investigations here allows others (checkusers, SPI clerks, etc.) to look at the same information I am and say "Yes, that's correct" or "I don't see that".

Finally, you ask about "regular" checks. Personally, I would be uncomfortable performing checks by request regularly unless there was a very good reason. Even then, it would be better to send such things to the functionary list so that the whole checkuser team could see it. I hope this answers your question. TN X Man 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have fully and thoroughly answered my question and I appreciate the prompt response. Thank you.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 David Mackay
Add to contacts

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This regards this edit on your talk page.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that on January 11 you blocked the IP address 195.195.247.150 with a hard block. Now MangoMouseMiner can't edit there. Wha's the background of this block? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was designed to prevent sockpuppeting. Thanks for catching this -I've blocked MangoMouseMiner as a sock of User:Sarumio. I hope this helps. TN X Man 14:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the block reason suggest that sockpuppetry is involved? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It does -"Block evasion: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarumio/Archive". The "block evasion" link mentions accounts used to evade a block will also be blocked and the page also includes a link to WP:SOCK. TN X Man 13:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant the IP's - it's block reason is still "Vandalism". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I was trying to disguise it a little bit so as not to make any obvious connections between IPs and named accounts. TN X Man 15:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, Tnxman307. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! TN X Man 13:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, back in January when User:Slamdunk03 was permanently blocked due to vandalism and personal attacks. User:Cyrus35334 tried to appeal the block because he said it was his "cousin" using the same computer which you declined [11]. Prior to that Cyrus35334 also attacked me in the same manner that Slamdunk03 did [12], even slighty racial [13]. More recently, Cyrus35334 has done the same; [14], [15], [16] to name a few I believe. On top of that this user has uploaded quite a few copyvio files in the past. All of these have gone without warning or punishment. I think action should be taken, more so if it's really his "cousin" that's also using the account Cyrus35334. Banana Fingers ( talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the data on Slamdunk03 is  Stale, so I am unable to draw any technical connections between the two accounts. However, edits and name calling (especially the ones evidenced above) should be reported to AIV. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. TN X Man 20:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Purplewowies is being affected by this IP block. The account was not blocked directly. Without of course revealing any identifying information, could you just give a yes or no to whether setting ipblock-exempt for this editor would be a good idea? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I re-checked and it appears the IP has been reassigned and the block no longer affects the vandal for whom it was meant. I've lifted the block. Cheers! TN X Man 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it. I've advised the editor accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tnxman, can I ask you a favor? I blocked Bvquach ( talk · contribs) thinking they were Dragon2016 ( talk · contribs), but I think I may have been wrong. You wielded your magic wand at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragon2016/Archive, and I'm wondering if you'll wield it again--preferably to prove my block incorrect. Thank you much, Drmies ( talk) 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bvquach does not appear related to the accounts in the Dragon2016 archive. TN X Man 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tnx man! Drmies ( talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good day Tnxman, you didn't answer my questions. I suppose you've forgotten about me by now, with all the meeting and greeting you must do each day! Anyhow, I've got another for you if you get the time to answer please. I've got a couple of photos I want to add to an article, but the editor doesn't seem to give me the option to select one from my local drives. Is there an easy way to get pictures up there? Mr Brickolage ( talk) 08:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)  Blocked as a sock of user DeFacto. --Ohiostandard, 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tnxman. I want to apologise for not saying "thank you" or following up on your reply to my previous question, viz. Unsure of how to handle suspected day-use socks. I'm sorry I didn't say so sooner; I had plumbers and builders in at the time, to do some remodelling of the homestead. It was quite a mess for a while, everything all ahoo, and I'm embarrassed to say that I let several threads slip where I ought to have expressed thanks. So thank you! -- OhioStandard ( talk) 14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! TN X Man 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your arguments on some of the information on the page not being entirely objective, but I feel like a lot of information that was already on there you erased was relevant. Like the two dates that became one etc. Do you think I can put it up there again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draek ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it until now, but you were the closer of this SPI case. You closed by blocking the open proxies of two accounts (likely to be the same person) and asked me to notify you if they edited again. I didn't notice, but if you look at the editing history of Aburizal Bakrie, you can see that User:Thamrin2 has been editing after your proxy block. Perfectly fine edits, yes, but it just raises my suspicions of being Kohs. Silver seren ^C 19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Just a quick note -I don't think there was ever a comment saying that Thamrin2 and Antasari were the same, just that they were both using proxies. I've blocked some additional proxies, but as before, there is nothing to say one way or the other about a relation between the two accounts. TN X Man 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there even any way to tell if they are if they're using proxies? I just assumed they were based on behavioral evidence, as they used the same edit summary format within a two day span. Silver seren ^C 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I sent you quite a lot of details. Please keep email private. -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 21:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tnxman. Will you comment at the above talk page please? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 23:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Tnxman. I've messaged JamesBwatson regarding this user thinking they were the blocking admin. If you have any input on the matter I'd be interested in your ideas. Thanks Tide rolls 02:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I came across the following pair of pages Drew32/ Drew32 (musician). Drew32 was deleted as the contributor Trustcitedonce was blocked by you. I don't know the best way to proceed, Drew32 (musician) is a clear recreation of Drew32 but as it wasn't deleted via a discussion it can't be deleted via {{ db-repost}}. Any advice? Thanks. Tassedethe ( talk) 22:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)