User talk:Vanjagenije

Main Articles Files Userboxes Awards Tools News Deletion log Talk page Hello, welcome to my talk page! If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere. Thank you! Vanjagenije (talk)

You are violating policy by editing my comments against my wishes for the second time.

As I said in the comment you reverted, you are violating policy by editing my comments. I wrote there, twice, "You SHOULD NOT not edit others posts, Vanjagenije". I added,

"Editing other users comments like this is inappropriate and are violations of CORE POLICY! SPIs are not intended only for Clerks and checkusers' eyes.

UPDATE: CORE POLICY (Which "apply to Wikipedia discussion pages" states, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (except in a list of exceptional cases, none of which apply). Please acknowledge."

I made some serious accusations there against you and asked for an acknowledgement of your error, and instead you've been dismissive - you reverted and didn't reply. That does not meet the behavior standard admins are supposed to hold themselves to.

You should change your tune, revert your edits to my comments, and address my concerns.

Or you can bully me into recognizing that, as is so often the case, the rules don't apply to administrators. If you think the rules don't apply to administrators, please say so. I'll let your edit stand and won't bother you further.

Otherwise, I intend to revert your edit, and ask that you respect WP:BRD. Because I have now read Wikipedia:SPI/PROC and I see nothing that justifies your revert, which has the edit summary "Do not revert SPI clerks or CheckUsers at SPI, see: WP:SPI/PROC". And even if there was, you should be civil, especially when you've violated a core policy and are justifying it by referring to a procedure that's not even a guideline.

If there's a different way to appeal the close or reopen the case, or report add'l IPs Wikipedia:SPI/PROC doesn't mention it, or I missed it.

Also, you threw out the baby with the bathwater. I reported another socking IP used by the same user. You reverted MY WHOLE EDIT. WT? I ask that you disengage from this SPI case.

--Elvey^(t•c) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Elvey: Yes, actually there is a different way to appeal the close: you could asked me politely on my talk page to explain you why I have closed the case. Instead, you reverted edits made by me and Mike V who is also a checkuser, which is very disruptive. WP:SPI is not a place for discussions and consensus, it is a technical area intended to investigate technical (and behavioral) data. It is governemd by certain procedures. Although those procedures are not labeled as "policy", they are result of a longstanding consensus, and as such are not to be disregarded. Procedures say that nobody may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close". You changed the status of the case to "open". Procedures say that clerks may "remove or refactor (within reason) any material by any user that is not strictly relevant to SPI. This material should not be reinstated by anyone other than Clerks or CheckUsers". You reinstated material removed by me. So, it was you who disregarded the common SPI procedures, and then accused me of "violating policies". As about your request to run CheckUser in said case, I have to tell that it is simply impossible. CheckUser is a tool that is used to check IP addresses and other technical data of registered accounts. In this particular case, there were no registered accounts mentioned, and so there is nothing to check. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and where did the rudeness start? You could have politely responded to my reopening of the case. But you didn't; instead you insist that doing so is "very disruptive" (I have no idea why.) You violated policy, which is very disruptive; that consensus cannot override policy is itself a well-established rule. So a bit of the pot calling the kettle black there. But OK, your procedure says it's OK, so let's drop it. In any case I did then come here and asked you politely on your talk page to explain to me why you have closed the case. But thank you for responding substantively on that point (though not on the main points I made, STILL). The other technical data is what needs to be checked, and it is available not just for registered accounts. I'd rather not point out what that is in public, so as not to help the bad guys; shall I email you or do you get what I'm talking about? Are you claiming that CheckUser is a tool that is ONLY EVER used on registered accounts? Oh, and your claim that "Procedures say that nobody may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close""? I don't see that at all. In fact it says Any capable user... May add a Request for CheckUser to a case if likely to be needed by changing – This SPI case is open. to – A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.. Which is what I did. It IS true that "Procedures say that no ADMIN may "change the status of an SPI case to anything except close"". Admin. Not. User. In any case, can we please stop this silliness? What I care about: Please do the reasonable thing and respond to the still open sock puppet issues I raised, including each point I wrote at Reopening (here). You haven't even checked the new IP I listed, FS! --Elvey^(t•c) 01:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, you tell me "Yes, actually there is a different way to appeal the close" but don't tell me what it is. What kind of person does that? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In the first sentence of my previous post, I told you what was the different way to appeal the close: the different way would have been if you asked me on my talk page. You have to understand what CheckUser is. It is a tool that is used to see underlying technical data (primarily IP address) behind registered accounts. When there are several accounts, this data can show if they are operated by the same person. CheckUser is also sometimes used to check for so called "sleeper accounts" (registered accounts that belong to the same person, but are not yet discovered). In both cases (comapring several accounts or looking for sleepers), CheckUser may be used only if there is very strong evidence and reason to use it. CheckUser may not be used (except in some very rare cases) to publicly connect registered accounts with their IPs (because of privacy). Checkuser can see what IP is used by an account (that is the purpose of checkuser), but may never publicly share that information. If a checkuser blocks an anonymous IP user and an account at the same time, even without any comments, it is still regarded as publicly revealing the connection, and is not allowed (because anybody can see in the block log that they were blocked at the same time). Sometimes checkusers run private checks to connect anonymous IP users with registered accounts, but they may not block them at the same time, and they may never publicly make any comment about that, they may not even say publicly that they made the check. In this particular case, there are no registered accounts mentioned in the investigation, so there is nothing to compare. Even if a CheckUser runs a private sleepers check (I guess that is what you want), he may not tell anybody that he made it. So, even if the checkuser was used in this particular case, you may not know that. Anyway, the user behind those IPs admits using them (here on my talk page), so there is no reason to investigate him if he admitted. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Something I understand about CheckUser is that I said 'The other technical data is what needs to be checked, and it is available not just for registered accounts. I'd rather not point out what that is in public, so as not to help the bad guys; shall I email you or do you get what I'm talking about? Are you claiming that CheckUser is a tool that is ONLY EVER used on registered accounts?' and I don't see a response. Apparently I do need to point out that this is what I'm talking about. What I understand but you seem to have missed is a part of the policy that you should be familiar with - but don't seem to be - which states (at WP:NOTFISHING): "it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." It makes your removal of the CheckUser "Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine" seem quite contrary tp WP:NOTFISHING). CheckUser can also be used to identify IPs that belong to the same person, but are not yet discovered - which one could call "sleeper IPs". It's equally true that "it is not fishing to check an IP where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sock puppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded."--Elvey^(t•c) 08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

More Aggression - reverts with no edit summary re. socks of un-vanished extreme pharma apologist protecting Chevron and its ilk.

I asked you to "disengage from this SPI case" due to your aggressively uncivil behavior. Instead, you remove obviously valuable and relevant to sockpuppet investigation information for reasons that, given the sock puppet's extreme bias, I AGF, but your refusal to provide reasons yourself, plus the general atmosphere of foot dragging and hostility makes me wonder about others' biases. If there's something you don't wish to disclose about this user on-wiki, feel free to email it to me in confidence if you think that'll help me understand. The guy sounds super reasonable in his posts above, but not when one delves deeper.

Can you please explain these reverts of yours? You provided no edit summary. That's not civil, especially when the revert deleted this, The info after the IPs is NOT in the above tables. Please stop hiding this information. It's valuable for the SPI process. If you don't want it here, archive it, since you revert me when I add it directly and don't explain why, which is particularly odd since my last edit to the archive was allowed to stand. It's obviously valuable and relevant to sockpuppet investigation. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Elvey: It is not allowed to edit SPI archives, and it is not allowed to revert SPI clerks or checkusers (you've already been told this). Please, stop your disruptive behavior. The case is closed and archived, please wp:drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Velebit sleepers

I went back to have a skim through the archive to have a look if I missed any more IPs, and it occurred to me to check for sleepers again. Sadly, I found one - in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Purger from 2006, User:Essjay had found User:Oesterling which was not named in the complaint, and noted "he's using a lot of 4.x.x.x addresses", while only 2 were named in the complaint. That looks like they checked for sleepers and found them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joy: Well, two sleepers from 9 and a half years ago is not really a reason to expect new sleepers now. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We're "lucky" behavioral evidence becomes fairly obvious fairly fast, but I still don't see a downside in doing a check. Having had to waste a lot of time with "Luciano di Martino" a few years back, which was investigated separately and only correlated with Velebit later, I would recommend that we use all the tools at our disposal to avoid wasting more time in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I investigated the latest range a bit more and it seems obvious that 65.220.39.64/26 is suspicious, as I've tagged multiple IPs there, and only one was a false positive (one had a single edit on Luis Suarez). Others were dead giveaways, such as [1] which references User:NovaNova's edit from 2007. So, yes, he's actually at it and remembers stuff from 8 years ago - so it stands to reason that we should remember stuff from 9 years ago. Please check if new accounts were created from that netblock in the last year that edit in the WP:ARBMAC topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The useful link is [2] --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joy: I don't understand your request. I want checkuser to run a sleepers check because there are IP socks? I don't see any connection. Sleepers check is not run unless there is a reasonable basis for believing that other accounts exists. That is not what I say, that was said by several checkusers many times (see this example [3]). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What happens if we need to run checkuser six months from now when a new suspicious account appears (not an IP sock), will everything be stale again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joy: In six months from now everything will be stale regardless of whether we make a check now or not. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sock with unknown master

Hey Vanjagenije. Scallywag5 resignup (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has admitted to socking on might be socking based on his/her userpage. Since I don't know the master, I wasn't sure where to report this. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Well, I wouldn't call that "admitting to socking". They say that their first account was blocked "for promotional purposes". If it was blocked based on the promotional username (so called soft block), then he is allowed to create new account (see: {{Uw-softerblock}}). We have to investigate further. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

When I read the statement, I took it to mean that this is account 3; however, it seems that I misread it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Vanjagenije as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 06:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thank you very much. I do celebrate Christmas, but on 7 January [O.S. 25 December]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for the OS mention and I forgot to say congratulations on your successful RFA. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

An unusual sock puppetry case

Hi Vanjagenije,

I have come across an atypical case of sock puppetry and block evasion, involving the innapropriate use of 3 accounts (2 with near similar spelling and a third to hide the tracks after one of them was globally locked).

Accounts Omar-Toons (with capital "T") and Omar-toons (with lower-case "t") were created on April 2010 and October 2010 respectively. They were used concurrently to "edit" more or less the same articles related to North Africa, at times, even on the same day, such as here and here.

After numerous blocks, including one for socking using IP, Omar-Toons was finally globally locked for massive crosswiki edit-warring on July the 29th, 2012.

On July the 30th, 2012 (less than 24 hours after the global block), a third account TooNs-NC was created for the sole purpose of cuningly and deliberately deceiving the admins. Claiming a forgotten password (obviously, he could not log in since he was blocked), the user redirected Omar-Toons' page [4] and talk page [5] to the new account (even though, he had no right to mess with a blocked account). Three hours later, after a couple of pretend contributions, he archived the pages, redirected them to Omar-toons and shelved the temporary account (claiming it was a bad idea to create it). He also added "formerly Omar-Toons" to his page[6] knowing full well that When you click on it, you get redirected to the new page and won't notice anything unusual.

I did mention this a couple of weeks ago at the ANI when an admin suggested a topic ban for Omar-toons, surprisingly, the discussion was archived shortly afterwards before any action could be taken. In hindsight, it probably wasn't the best place to post it.

Seeing as all three accounts are directly interlinked, a CU seems rather unnecessary, so I am not sure on how to proceed. I will be grateful for any help you can provide. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Omar-Toons is globally locked, but is not blocked. @Vituzzu: Can you help us here? You locked Omar-Toons [7] for "massive crosswiki edit-warring". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with the lock evasion. It's the sock puppetry (to avoid scrutiny) and the use of a third account to hide the tracks that I have an issue with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nahla Rowe

Can you please salt these two articles? Nahla Rowe and Nahla Rowe (singer). This is part of an aggressive hoax campaign using photos of a real person named Sherise Cromwell. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I'm not sure that's needed. WP:SALT says that an article title should be salted if it's "repeatedly recreated". None of those two articles was recreated after being deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It was recreated with "(singer)" attached. This is an extremely aggressive campaign - there is an SPI ongoing describing their efforts. There is no such person named Nahla Rowe. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Yes I understand the situation, but I just think that such protection is not needed. If the page is recreated, but under different title (like this one), than salting cannot help. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Chukwu12345 sock

I've just blocked WarriDelta. No CU needed as the userpage content I deleted was identical to the first version of IYLE. Maybe just keep it on file and add it if/when the SPI needs reopening. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Thanks. I tagged his user page. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerking

You're an absolute rock, Vanja. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously. You're awesome! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood

You blocked the IP[8] as sock of Xtremedood, now what really matters is that the original block of Xtremedood should be expanded. I am little bit confused here though, because it is marked as "checkuser block", so it will have to be discussed with Ponyo first, but then I guess it is not needed because you will be only extending the block to an indefinite block. We can wait for Ponyo's opinion here.

1 week block by far, was absolutely a lenient block. I thought that only those users are given 1 week - 1 month block, that are not actually aware of sock puppetry policies. But Xtremedood had been abusing his IP and other account since his first day, and it went for over 11 months already.

I didn't had enough interaction with Xtremedood, although I got to check his edits recently after this SPI,[9] it seems like every edit of him needs to be checked. But his massive edit warring,[10][11][12][13][14] forum shopping,[15][16][17][18] misleading ANI reports,[19][20][21] personal attacks[22] and more problems that are wasting our time and uselessly increasing work. That's why Ponyo aso had same view, he also told him that "Your account has been disruptive from the get-go"[23] and Xtremedood considered it to be "attempt to silence views you seem to disagree" and "extreme POV bias".[24]

You can also read his unblock request comments,[25] he was blaming "Indian" users for his policy breaches. Which means that he had himself rejected any policy breach. If this is brought to ANI, outcome would be still indefinite block, or even site ban. That's why indefinite block is completely justified here. Capitals00 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've extended Xtremedood's block based on the findings at the SPI. An immediate indef block on a master account with thousands of edits and nearly a year of editing isn't common, you have to provide the user at least the chance to reform and edit constructively. They've been given two chances now, I don't expect they'll get much more if they continue to evade their block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I agree with Ponyo. Indefinite block is still not a good idea, but if he continues, it is certainly an option. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons' greetings!

Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Steel1943/HappyHolidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Vanjagenije, hope your holidays are happy, and a happy new year! Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Thank you very much. I wish you happy holidays too. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

and as you're around, you dealt with a sock case that may relate to WP:ANI#Anyone want to untangle this, um, really really really not here?. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thank you very much. I wish you merry Christmas too. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

GAB^Hello! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes,

GAB^Hello! 01:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Thanks a lot. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:David Cossgrove

Hi! Can you tell me the thinking that went into archiving the comments which answered the IPs questions? BMK (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Nevermind, I just saw on AN/I that you had blocked the IP as a self-confessed sock, so it makes perfect sense. Sorry to bother you. BMK (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring about an SPI report

Hello Vanjagenije, and congrats on your success at RfA! Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique which I've semied due to IP edit warring. It appears that the case has been hopefully waiting for some input from you. You should decide where to go from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hr team

Hello, could you please block Hr team (talk · contribs) for repeatedly creating Gangisetty ashok kumar, which seems to be a copy vio and a breach of User name policy. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: he is already blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Just saw that.. happened as I was typing on your Talk page. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

Hello. When checking the contributions of an IP that had made unconstructive edits on a number of articles I found this edit on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive, looking like the IP had tried to file an SPI report, but had made it in the wrong place. So would you mind taking a look at it, and move it to the right place (or whatever)? Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thanks, I'll take a look. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Actually, the same report is already in the right place (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert). Seams the IP made it twice. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Vanjagenije, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Krakkos (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Krakkos: Thanks a lot. I wosh you a Merry Christmas too. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Winkelvi: Thanks a lot. I wish you a Happy New Year too. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

Thanks for removing my duplicate SPI report. I caught wind of what I did after I submitted it, but figured it would be best if a clerk took care of it. Didn't want to crap on anyone's thunder. Have a happy (and safe!) New Years :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

• @Liz: Thanks a lot. Happy New Year to you too. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Vanjagenije!

Happy New Year!

Vanjagenije,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Davey2010: Thanks. Happy New Year to you too. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Have a great day :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

TopGun acting like a check user

TopGun is not a check user or administrator. What rights has he got to tag these as my socks?

1,

2,

3,

4.

I am not Maheshkumaryadav. --223.176.5.204 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I see they were blocked by DoRD and globally blocked by others, but they didn't tag them. Please ask TopGun where did he get CU results. 223.176.5.204 (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@TopGun: Can you explain this? What is the reason of your tagging those accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm not acting as a checkuser as the IP sock of CosmicEmperor claims (not sure why it is being entertained on-wiki anyway). I tagged the socks due to the fact that 1) they were CU blocked and 2) they were obviously WP:DUCK socks of CE (I don't think any credible editor is barred from tagging socks even more so, such obvious ones). This is clearly noticeable from the habit of CosmicEmperor's CU proven / blocked sock "The Avengers" who "thanked" my contributions at his own SPI... now these socks obviously claiming to be CE and trolling, do the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@TopGun: But, seams that three of those have no edits at all, not even deleted edits. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to enter the "thanks" link. They thanked me at the SPI as I said (exactly as The Avengers did): [26]. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@TopGun: What about Maheshkumaryadav? Did he thank you? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet. Due to 1) Avengers asking another user at his talkpage if he 'remembered' Maheshkumaryadav while trolling and also when a user appeared with the name 'CosmicEmperor is Maheshkumaryadav'. I can't be sure about this case about Maheshkumaryadav and remains a strong suspicion however, I'm certain about the ones that thanked me in a trolling way like The Avengers. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@TopGun: OK, thanks for explanation. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Vanja!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Vanja, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

@Sam Sailor: Thanks a lot. Happy New Year to you, too. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Egaplaicesp and Tirgil34

Happy New Year Vanjagenije. As the previous case on Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp was a little bit chaotic, i have created a new one in an as simple way as possible. Please review it, as Tirgil34 and Egaplaicesp are clearly the same person. Krakkos (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mughal Lohar

Hi Vanja, I pinged you at this SPI a couple of days ago. If you don't want to do the clerical work I requested, that's fine, but I just need to know one way or the other. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No problem, I just forgot about it. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

AlkReadEditView history

I've reblocked User:AlkReadEditView history without talk page access, given the long string of edits such as [27]. I can't explain what he's doing, but if you want to unblock, reduce the block time, or otherwise modify anything, you have my permission. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: No, actually you are perfectly right. After reviewing his edits, I realize that it is a vandalism-only account. Should be indeffed anyway. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm generally very hesitant to issue a VOAblock, preferring instead to give a short block with something saying "if you shape up, you'll be welcome here", but someone who mangles user talk page archives and has such a username is already a bit familiar with Wikipedia and isn't likely to be convinced by a short block, so this is one of those rare situations where I thought a first-off VOAblock appropriate. I wasn't going to modify your block initially, but post-block replacing his talk page with part of yours is a separate offense and made him ripe for additional sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Looks like he is already sockpuppeting (see the history of this page). Vanjagenije (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Already saw that; see Special:Log/Nyttend. Would you mind filing and self-endorsing a CU request? Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} I don't think a SPI is needed. I'm asking a checkuser to block the IP/range behind this user.Vanjagenije (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 In progress.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I've comparatively rarely filed SPIs, and they're always the kind of stuff that can wait a little while, not something like this where we need to stop a rampage in progress. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still checking, but I have a question. Do you have evidence that this user was using IP addresses? Or are you interested in preventing any user from using the IP(s) this user was using when editing as a named account? Two very different things; the latter would be a hard block. I'm finding many accounts that are  Confirmed to this account, but they're all already blocked, no doubt because the vandalism is so egregious they're easy to spot. I just need to know where I'm going with this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It is the latter option. I wanted you to stop this person creating new accounts by blocking his IP range. I have no evidence of him editing anonymously. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

[editconflict] I'm not aware of this person editing without an account; all the damage I've seen has been with "User:AlkReadEditView history" and "Wikipedia is made by people like you.Wikipedia is made by people like you." Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm done. I couldn't block as wide a range as I wished because of collateral damage, so it'll probably prevent a few, but there may be others. Vanja, do you remember a nest of socks whose usernames mocked administrators?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Well, no. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Goelia SPI

I see you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. Would it be possible to revert the disruptive activity that I mentioned there? Namely Goelia/Drüfft moved pages and prevented reverting those by creating false history (changing #REDIRECT → #Redirect); it would be helpful if you could move the page back to Hacı Bektaş Veli complex, or just delete the redirect page with the artificial history that he created, so that others can move it back.--Orwellianist (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Orwellianist: Can you show me the page where consensus was reached that the title should be "Hacı Bektaş Veli complex"? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion about the name in the past other than what I wrote; it seems Goelia/Drüfft just edit warred to impose the name he preferred. He did the same thing when I explained in the talk page that no source uses the name he moves the page to; he again moved the page without replying, and did the same thing (#REDIRECT → #Redirect) to prevent a revert. Overall, two Wikipedians preferred the name Hacı Bektaş Veli complex, and there wasn't any legitimate opposition, just another user moved the page without bothering to join to the discussion it in the talk page. I'd say there is consensus here.

In any case, I am not saying you should decide what is the correct name for the article, just that this is inappropriate behavior that he kept engaging in through his sockpuppets; and an intervention by an administrator is needed to delete the artificial history he created to prevent other users from reverting his edits.--Orwellianist (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Orwellianist: I deleted it. Are there any other similar pages? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. He seems to have done the same thing when moving a page from Harutyun Shahrikyan, but I don't know if that was a controversial name change (though he certainly must have thought that it is, since he was trying to prevent others from reverting his move). He also did the same on Haci Bektas related pages: Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli complex, Hacıbektaş Museum, Hacıbektaş museum (the last two are interesting, they are not even moves, he created "#REDIRECT" pages and then immediately change them to "#Redirect", preemptively blocking future moves there), but there is no harm in their remaining as redirects.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but in the case of Hacı Bektaş-ı Veli complex, he did provide a source in the summary [28]. I recommend a wp:move request in that case. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The link he quoted also uses Haci Bektas and it doesn't say Haji Bektash even a single time, so it goes against his point. I honestly don't have any idea what he was trying to do. I happened to have moved the page back to Hacı Bektaş Veli complex before seeing your reply; but I would be open to discuss the issue in the talk page with anyone who is interested, it is a trivial issue anyway and it is not difficult to reach a consensus with good faith editors. Until someone joins do discussion to say otherwise, I think the current name is the best, it is the name used by UNESCO and most sources as far as I can see.--Orwellianist (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Nicat49 and Ulvi Rustam

Hello Vanjagenije,

I recently opened a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NovaSkola against NovaSkola and his new sock Ulvi Rustam. But I stumbled upon something very strange. Look at the user pages of both these accounts: [29] and [30]. What the hell is going on here? It's almost identical. Also, NovaSkola awarded this guy with awards the same way he awarded his other sock Yacatisma with. And it's NovaSkola that posted it directly on Nicat49's userpage! These two users have edited 129 of the same articles [31]. How is Nicat49 not blocked already?!

Anyways, I come to you because I know you have made your share of efforts to bring this up and perhaps you are more experienced with Nicat49 than I. I am curious to hear your opinion over this very serious matter. Thanks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @In ictu oculi: and @Ricky81682: because they were also interested in this matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear quacking, worth an SPI and check. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what is going on here. I see from the archives where I was involved years ago but as I noted them, there's a lot of people who come here just specifically interested in the very limited articles on Azerbaijani sports (football really). The last editor was found to be unrelated even though there were able to recreate deleted articles exactly and those pages stood. Ulvi has been here since March 2015 with a small (relatively) number of issues. Sometimes I wonder if these sock hunts are really helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• @EtienneDolet: You are aware that there was already an investigation against Nicat49 (initiated by myself), and that he was found unrelated to NovaSkola? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there was much more elaboration that needed to be done at the SPI. In addition to what I have said above, for example, Nicat49's favorite soccer teams on Azeri Wikipedia page seem to be the same ones on Ulvi's page, let alone the fact that it is the same favorite teams for almost every other sock as well. After this whole Ulvi SPI is done with, I plan starting an elaborate investigation into this matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

SPI on Sulmues, the wikipedian everybody hates

Hello Vanjagenije and thank you for your attention, User:Gjidede, as I have clearly explained in my defense at the SPI is mine, but that's my last name, and I stopped using it. The other accounts are NOT mine. Have a great day and thank you for your work in wikipedia! MorenaReka (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pumpie

Hi, Vanjagenije! Who at SPI (or elsewhere) might be considered an "expert" on Pumpie (talk · contribs)? I've been dealing with an IP-hopper who's been disruptively editing various Istanbul Metro-related articles and templates (esp. the M1 (Istanbul Metro) article) for months now, and I'm just wondering if editing Turkish metro-system articles is within Pumpie's usual M.O. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• @IJBall: I identified several Pumpie socks, but that was more than a year ago, so I don't know if I'm an expert. I don't remember him ever using anonymous IPs. He was using registered accounts to (re-)create articles about metro stations in all parts of the World (including Turkey) and metro related templates. It was usually easy to spot him by watching deleted pages that he previously created. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks – if Pumpie never uses IP's, then it's probably not Pumpie in this instance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disturbing talk page msg by blocked ip.

Hi Vanjagenije, in vieuw of this block, I think this is a pretty disturbing talk page message addressed at user Boomer Vial. Perhaps talk page access should be revoked? Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm:  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again

Hi: Remember this? He's back and with gruesome racist insults in his User talk. See user contributions too. Thanks in advance. --Fixertool (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fixertool: I blocked him. He should be blocked anyway, regardless of sockpuppeting as he was only attacking other users. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I am posting here because I guess it may be wrong to post on the page of a closed case? Howsoever, thank you for your care in the Douglas Cotton sockpuppet investigation.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Vanjagenije, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed relating to you in the ongoing Kevin Gorman arbitration case. Please review the remedy or finding of fact and feel free to comment at the proposed decision talk page. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

Could you please check the validity of a user named "Mintytingy" for the possibility that they may using multiple accounts?. Based on the nature of edits (contributions) they are engaged in and the intended edits that they keep intending to make despite me correcting them, I suspect it's a sockpoppet of a previously blocked user called "MaronitePride" and a recently blocked "MyNewAccountName".

I hope it would help make Wikipedia a much better place, Thanks, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: Do you have some evidence (WP:diffs) to show that those accounts are connected? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't, you could perhaps check the history of the "Lebanese nationality law" article, they seem to forcibly enforce the same edits. Check the revisions made by MyNewAcountName and the latest one by that new user. It's a just a bit less than identical. You could perhaps check the articles they're interested in based on the log/history. Interested in the middle east demography and the assyrians. Plus is it a coincidence that one's account went down and the other showed up? With them same views edits and interests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: I opened a SPI here. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

The user we spoke on yesterday was confirmed as a sockpoppet. Well Thanks for your efforts and cooperation. I don't get why would he want to do this and break the rules on Wikipedia. The question is to how to prevent this from reoccuring? This user have created multiple accounts. Over 30-40 from what I have seen. Is there's a way to perhaps prevent it? and How to I report a sockpoppet user in the future if it ever happened again? Could you provide me with simplified instructions. That would be so helpful, Thanks again

Best regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: Well, simply speaking, there is no way to stop prevent him from creating new accounts. When an account is blocked, wp:autoblock is activated, and it prevents creating new accounts from the same IP address, but it expires after a while. So, we can just monitor his favorite articles and wait for him to appear again. In the future, you can report sockpuppetry, as explain at WP:SPI, in a box titled "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Requests_Case_Kevin_Gorman_closed

Sock puppets

My request on that page was primarily b/c I didn't know what I was doing or what I should be doing. However the issues on the article have been brought to others attention. And they are dealing with it. {{help-me}} template is a useful thing. If you want to just remove my request on that page it is fine by me. Thanks.Krj373 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to tag orphaned SPI pages

Hi Vanjagenije, I'm interested in writing this bot if there is still a need for it. If so, would you be able to provide me with some other reference examples where the bot would be able to make some fixes? Cheers, FASTILY 01:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: Thanks, it is still needed, of course. I don't know how well are you familiar with the SPI pages. When a sockpuppet investigation case is filed, a page is created with the "Wikipedia:SPI/" prefix. At the same time, the page has to be tagged with a {{SPI case status}} template (usually with no parameter, but that is not important, example). Then we have a bot (Amalthea (bot)) that looks for those pages and adds them to the main list (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview). After the case is resolved, the page is archived and the {{SPI case status}} template is removed (example). The bot then removed the page from the list. But, sometimes an editor makes a mistake and created a SPI case page without adding the {{SPI case status}} template (example). The page is than not added to the list and gets lost. Now, excuse me, but I can't find more examples of such pages, because such pages are either (a) lost and I cant find them, or (b) fixed and I don't know where to look. Anyway, we need some kind of solution for that. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Starship9000

Hi!

Thanks for your help at SPI. I have just gotten back from a looonnngg Wikibreak, and I saw this edit. It looked a little suspicious to me... do you think there's a connection? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I don't see there is anything to do about that. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my paranoia regarding this -- it's been frustrating. GAB^Hello! 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaron j christopher 101/Archive

I was searching for other possible instances of this user's work and found User:Example44477787 blocked as "a sock puppet of Aaron Javiaes Christopher". I also stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/66.87.117.244 which is still open after a couple of months, and has Aaron Javiaes Christopher as the suspected sockpuppet. I though you'd like to know since you've been minding the main SPI archive for this investigation, as I assume these should be part of it. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Uncle Milty: Thanks a lot. I'll sort it out. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet again

Hi Vanjagenije. You recently blocked this user, but he is here again with this ip. You can check the ip is blocked in spanish wikipedia because he is the same sockpuppet. Also check his contributions. Thanks. --Bleckter (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)