User talk:Berean Hunter/Archive 7

2257:

well as my own personal dictionary then I have every right to correct such abuses of the language. I am sorry that you seem to think that there are various "types" of English. The English language was first used by the English nation, which is a little redundant and blatantly obvious but I don't think that people are aware of this. There is no such thing as "American English" because it is the exact same language, but the Americans choose to be arrogant, condescending, lazy or plain stupid enough to think that they can just change the spelling of any word they choose? Americans change words like flavour, honour, colour etc . . . There is no logical reason for doing this outside of the list I just put forward . . . If they do have a valid reason then perhaps they, or you, should attempt to explain why they don't change words like source or courage as well? Once again I put it to you that there is no logic in doing this. to quote an article within Knowledge on this specific topic which you chose to contact me about: "Noah Webster popularized such spellings in America, but he did not invent most of them. Rather, "he chose already existing options on such grounds as simplicity, analogy or etymology" Now that statements says a lot. To end off, if I choose to correct the spelling and legitimacy errors, that I come across within the guidelines the Oxford dictionary allows me to, I shall do so at will and at my convenience.

7915:

me realize that most if not all are connected with the master puppet. None of them appear to have made, for example, any constructive or favorable edit towards an Armenian or Greek article. And as you may have noticed, the edit-summaries of each IP are similar. The articles in which they edit are similar. I've been dealing with the sock puppetry of this account for quite some time now. In fact, I've dealt with this account from the first day I have started editing Knowledge, and I can almost sense when s/he is around. I must also say that with an enormous history of sock-puppetry and the continuous disruption that these IPs have caused (i.e. page protections, edit-warring, topic ban violations, and etc.), a one week block seems to be too kind. Whats going to happen after a week or so when they start editing again?

175:. Today i was searching my site on google and was surprised to notice that my website is on the list of spammers in wikipedia. I don't know how and why that happen. I searched for links history in wikipedia and hardly found 3-4 links. If something illegal or suspecious has happened in the past, we are not responsible for that. Kindly remove our site from the spammer list, We will monitor regularly to check of illegal activities in future. Medicotips.com provides credible health information and it has got the certificate of trust from health on net foundation and also has the well educated and reputed editorial board. We clearly mention term of service, contact, privacy and advertising policy on our website. Kindly cooperate in this manner. I shall be thankful. Kind Regards. Dr Adil Ramzan, CEO Medicotips.com ( 1312:

Now": "Your obstruction to Mr. Parini's wiki page is vandalism. It is obvious you are doing this because of his CNN piece on gun control. Stop now so no further action will have to be taken. Thank you." I believe that these users are only trying to protect Jay Parini's wiki page from what appears to be politically-motivated vandalism by Mike Searson. Also, I am quite certain that the user accounts "Leoparini" and "Jersild" (also blocked as suspected sockpuppets) belong to Jay Parini's son and wife, respectively. Thus, I think that the culprit here is Mike Searson and not these other users. (Full disclosure: I am a former student of Jay Parini, and I have just registered as a wikipedia user to try to help clear up this mess! Any help or suggestions you could offer for how to proceed would be much appreciated.)

1464:

the "link rot" issue is by including full references, not just URLs. Also, I understand your point about vandalism, and I agree that most of Mike Searson's revisions do not fall into that category at all; most simply call into question the citations (or lack thereof) on these articles. The only worrying revisions are those made to the main Jay Parini article at 22:16 on 7 Sept 2014, where it appears that this user has removed links to Goodreads pages (I'm not sure why) and has incorrectly altered the names of the last two works listed (though maybe these latter alterations were just typos?). And in the revisions of 14:48 on 9 Sept, he seems to have deleted perfectly legitimate citations, which have since been replaced. Anyway, once I can start making revisions, hopefully this will all be cleared up.

11569: 8037:'s autobiography (Twain was not a fan of an American foreign policy choice which involved surrounding a volcanic crater where a decidedly unmeek Moro village was concealed, then throwing every piece of modern ordnance possible into the crater, literally killing women and children by hand afterwards in the mop up.) I seem to remember not removing the passage then because 1) it was beautifully written, 2) unsurprisingly ironic, 3) the best source I could find at the time and 4) Knowledge was a very different place as it regards sourcing then than it is now. 9268:

edits in his/her entire history, all on that page, all within the last two months, and including the edit in question twice. The address 209.212.4.2 has 6 edits, all in the last two months, and all on that page (or its corresponding talk page), including the exact edit in question once. When I reverted the edit in question, with summaries (and a "Please see "To 76.117.58.67" on talk page" note), 50.166.46.164 has reverted my edit twice, with no summary at all. Is there something that can be done about these addresses? Thank you very much.

7126: 7367: 2942:. Given the high activity level of the sockmaster, I'm inclined to leave the block as-is. Otherwise, many editors must continually work to undo the resultant mess. Your IT staff may be interested in this posting so they can figure out who the problem child is and handle accordingly. That sock is the reason that range is blocked. Sorry for the trouble Medmyco...we love the good work that you are doing and love student editors as well. Lilitiana may need to find another network where she shouldn't have any problems. 2702: 3047: 2695: 5410:

happens it is because they may expect to find the diffs as they look but those clerks and admins are going above and beyond their duties. The truth is that it is harder for investigators if they have to spend all of their time digging for diffs...that isn't their job. Cases move along much quicker when clear evidence with diffs are presented. Most editors have a misconception that investigation is in the mandate for clerks which is incorrect. Any editor may investigate and report. Clerks have

31: 11404: 2663: 473:

work ! Is ...0.5 % from what i do here ! Who you think you are ? Admin ? Editor ? IF I will do the same on ALL your contributions, let's see if you like it a ? FIRST, ASK, second, DOCUMENT yourself, third -YOU ARE NOT "GOD" to do what you want based on ...."your intuitions" . You saw ...7-8 added links from ALL my work and you act like crazy ? This is SPAM ? Beside i DON'T HAVE ANY intention to promote ANY site, i even remove when i see broken links, etc !

3538: 3591: 1517:

I accidentally deleted one character from a title of a book as I was editing. I believe this same editor pointed it out on the talk page and I fixed it as soon as I realized it. Linkrot is becoming a big concern on wiki, particularly as information gets archived, urls change, etc. I have seen perfectly good sources become dead in a matter of months in some cases. I went as far as to format a reference in the article to show how easy it was.--

3387: 9203:

here. In the last couple of days she was mis-characterized again leading to another editor calling for an indef block although they were poorly informed so this is a serious matter. Packer isn't perfect as none of us are. Stubs can be and will be repaired as that is the nature of Knowledge. We correct each others' mistakes. Their exasperation in not being able to satisfy a particular editor is a red flag that they are feeling hounded ("

1929: 4512: 7171: 4543: 1896: 8996: 5507: 4391: 3919: 3794: 3653: 3423: 3112: 2484: 1986: 235: 10417: 6171: 4990: 2757: 1106: 7215: 10394:. Deleted contribs on all but xxx.238 are telling and a mention that they should be looked at in an SPI report should be mentioned. That's all for now...I'll let you look this over and see if you can add to it. USA vs. China FIFA Women's World Cup is on so I'm going off wiki to enjoy it. Just watched an amazing game between Germany and France. Let me know what you think/what you find. Cheers, 8419: 5467:

you can do this. The spending of hours tracking socks that you mention is why investigators would like for the evidence to be presented rather than having to fish for them...if you can make a clear case, it is best done by you. Adding a few diffs shouldn't take that long in comparison to spending hours tracking. Would you like me to reopen the case so that you can do this?

7142: 7137: 7132: 4268:, which you replaced in October 2014, and which is due to expire in a few days. I have checked the editing history, and it does not look to me as though the editor requesting the unblock is the one that led you to make the block. My inclination is to lift the block, or at the least to make it anon-only, but do you have any reason or thinking that is not a good idea? 709:

edit summary had incorrect information in it, and it is clear from that and the editor's talk page comment (not the article talk page) that he/she just doesn't understand. While it is all clear to me, I do have the knowledge of what is going on with these buildings. The article is inadequate if it doesn't explain the situation to this person's satisfaction.—

9165:

take some of the advice given. As for the sex and political bias issues, given the good-hand/bad-hand editing done up until very recently, I don't think it is a terrible, rip-roaring error to incorrectly see that this one edit (in a wholly unsourced article) wasn't of the same nature as before. I would hope that your fair assessment would not be that being

2426:

sort of disruption? Refer to the diffs on Alifazal's talk page, where there is evidence that he has attempted to intimidate and insult users and routinely reports people for socking or takes them to the Conflict of Interest notice page whenever they disagree with him. If anyone has been disruptive, it is him. Please reconsider the semi-protections.

8777:. My fault, I omitted to list that one in the first place; it may i be the current master account. I feel silly not knowing how to do this stuff--especially since I now have checkuser (and I do know how to do that, at least). On the other hand, I do know most of the parts of deletion process and afc and NPP & citations. 8684:

userpage and I'll do so right away! I edit on Chrome/Win7 at home, Firefox/Win7 at work, and Chrome/Android5.1.1/Nexus5 throughout the day also. "Linux distro" sounds like some obscure techno band! Heh, j/k I know what it is and I have an old PC running Ubuntu but it's been collecting dust in a closet for years now. :p

4770:) Given there's only 1 account and a possibility of meatpuppetry, I'm wondering if an indef block might be a bit much given the situation. Would you be willing to consider reducing the block to 2 weeks with a stern warning the any additional accounts would lead to an indefinite block? I'd appreciate your thoughts. 4631: 511:"Is ...0.5 % from what i do here !"....Really? What are your other accounts then because with this account you are strictly a spammer. Yes, I am an admin and one that will block you if you add another link to that site again. If you think that my assessment on your activities is incorrect then you may post to the 7640:, when the sources say Anahita, with the "a" at the end, etc, while Tiptoe has been neutral and sticking to what the sources say. And 92slim has been repeatedly prodding and provoking Tiptoe, accusing him of sockpuppetry and so on, so this block is not fair. The one deserving a block is 92slim, not Tiptoe. 11517:

In this editors unblock request, which I refused, you say that you have used a new SPI template or method. This does not show on the standard SPI page, which exists for this user. No problem, but could you please explain what I should look for? Where I should look for it? I can, of course, just leave

9591:

that were mine and a few extra. Because Twinkle only places one tag at the time of protection, if I had applied semi-prot and PC1 then I would let the bot tag the page for PC1...I didn't realize that the bot tagging is a problem. In the future, I can use Twinkle in a second action to tag it and avoid

9324:

FYI - If an admin starts editing an article that is not protected, someone turns on full protection while the edit window is open, and then the admin saves their edit, there is apparently no warning message that pops up as you save the edit as to the protection having been applied. You would have no

7788:

That had reached a new level of disruptive and combative editing and at no point did Tiptoe try to ask for admin intervention or post concerning the removals on the talk page so other editors could take part in discussion. More than one editor had restored comments but only Tiptoe had removed. "Not a

6037:

did not block. Is there something wrong with that editor's behavior now? If the editor is making good contributions and not engaging in any abusive practices then I wouldn't necessarily pursue this unless you think you have found him socking or doing something else that he shouldn't. After looking, I

5409:

He is correct. He wanted you to produce the diffs from Mr. Hedlund's account for comparison to the others that you did provide. You have been involved in cases where clerks and admins may have went ahead and made a voluntary decision to investigate even though the requirements were not met. When that

964:

Not what I want. I want Mama to stay the way it was before I contacted you. I want Sibtain to be precisely as it was before I started - with all the original history intact. You made it so Sibtain doesn't really exist anymore except as a redirect. Sorry if I wasn't clear. That's what would be so nice

865:

I then expected to go back and essentially put Sibtain back to exactly the way it was before the move, but the only choice I have is to revert what I did. When I try to restore it, it says there's nothing to restore, no revision history, zilch. I assume a revert will put Mamadotadioukone back the way

11470:

I thought twice before making that edit because it was in an archived page, but it didn't have an explicit caution against editing as you see with closed discussions and pages with archive templates on them. I decided to make the edit because the issue was still open, and the archiving was done by a

9202:

on the current ANI thread. If I had been overtly concerned about either of your behaviors then I would have actually left warnings on your talk pages instead of being intentionally illusory. I'm not holding anything against either of you; I just happen to think that overzealousness may be attributed

8476:

for that to be one year. I've changed it now. As an aside, indef blocking IPs does indeed happen as well they should sometimes; whole ranges in fact. These are periodically reviewed. I don't recall ever setting one myself...my longest may be three years. Raw link below because I can't get it to post

8040:

I'm not asking for a history merge, though that may be the best course eventually if the merge goes forward (I've seen worse). I won't oppose a merge and I remember being a primary contributor to the Massacre page, though page history doesn't reflect that these days. Is there a hornet's nest to open

7812:

Do you actually understand the content of any of these diffs? I can't imagine why anybody would restore any of those comments, unless they wanted to drag the other party into a petty edit war. The last diff includes the accusation that he's socking; repeated, unsubstantiated sockpuppetry accusations

6121:

I think you got it wrong. The Edwards book whose addition you reverted as not being used in the article is cited twice (n. 19). In addition, it is discussed and recommended in Andrew Schonebaum's book, which is aimed at teachers, so in fact it is well worth keeping. Also I wonder if it's good policy

5466:

the text to make it clear. People may have looked at it. I have looked at a number of them in which I haven't commented so it may not be obvious how many folks looked the report over. I had not personally looked at this case though. If you would like to add the requested diffs, I will reopen so that

4216:

I'm new to SPI. What do I do when/if additional socks arrive now that this one is blocked? There are a couple other accounts that I also suspect are socks from the same astroturfing service, but did not have enough evidence yet. It's possible they will become more active now that the primary account

2852: 1516:

I removed a goodreads and a paperbackswap link IIRC. These are not considered reliable sources for a biographical article, nor would they pass muster in a college term paper if the standard I was held to is still in place. As for the other issue, I have a browser issue which makes my cursor jump and

1311:

I believe that revisions made to the "Jay Parini" wikipedia entry by users "Chap490" and "Appe499", whom you have identified as potential sock puppets, were intended to undo vandalism done by user "Mike Searson". Appe499 added the following warning to Mike Searson's talk page under the heading "Stop

708:

I tried explaining this to another editor who wanted to help me with the article, but this editor is so confused he/she can't make productive contributions. I end up having to revert most of them. The last time, I got no repsonse from this person, and so far he/she hasn't said anything. But the last

472:

Hey dude ! Who the hell you think you are ? Just because i DIDN'T use ALL THE TIME when i contribute to several articles even creating new ones, my log in to prove that I'M CREATING here, this gives you right to erase ALL my additions ? Those were just FEW additions from ALL my WORK ! That is NOT my

7914:

Thank you Berean Hunter. Once again, thank you for taking your time and looking into this matter. I must say, after examining all these IPs, and noticing that each of their edits contain some sort of Turkish nationalist agenda, and that the edits are almost always anti-Armenian or anti-Greek, made

7544:

I don't believe that you've addressed any of my points, and I don't see how labelling him an SPA or saying that he's implicated in nationalistic edit warring is helpful. Why did you not even give him a warning? You could've said, "if you refactor talk pages one more time, I'm going to have to block

7507:

He is not involved in nationalistic edit warring. Despite his attitude - which is obviously wanting - he makes reasoned arguments, and all of his edits I've seen are concordant with the sources. His talk page reverts are justifiable, one being a puerile taunt, the second a nationalist rant, and the

6820:

states "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter..." and the massacre isn't the subject of the article. Adding a list of names on a memorial plaque doesn't add anything to the article that helps the reader understand more about Mini-14s. It comes

2425:

has been interpreted by it as a license to continue and increase edit warring. (See the edit warring notice on his talk page, which refers to an ongoing complaint against him at 3RR.) On a second issue, is a request all that you need before you semi-protect articles? Do you require evidence of some

11486:

You shouldn't comment in an archive as the thread is considered to be closed. Occasionally, a clerk, admin or experienced editor may update a link or leave a post-archive note that is useful for someone reading the archive but there is no active discourse any longer. Threads that have archived are

9164:

I will say that I completely give up on this topic. There's a problem with the edits from this editor. Ignoring the one under discussion, each of their stubs created from earlier today needed fixes. I don't want the editor to stop editing. I think it would be best if the editor would slow down and

8793:

That's okay, that's what we are here for, not only as clerks but also as Wikipedians to help each other. :) What connects this editor to the others? I haven't realized the connection. The case has multiple accounts all editing a tight group of schools in Australia but the above account seems to be

7827:

The converse is that I can't imagine why anybody would delete any of those comments repeatedly, unless they wanted to drag the other party into a petty edit war. The only person removing them was Tiptoe as other editors had correctly addressed the comments. As for 92slim's accusations of puppetry,

7681:

which had been up since May 26 have an IP that 92slim thought was a sock but Tiptoe combatively enters to remove their posts with "not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity". Tiptoe had not been conversing in that thread...so why does he get to control it

1463:

Many thanks for your response, Berean Hunter! Your suggestions are very helpful. The articles in question are now semi-protected, I see, so as far as I understand it, I've got to build up my "street cred" a bit before adding citations. As for existing citations, it looks like the best way to avoid

1124:

At this point, I won't take any action to fix this without pre-approval. When I look at the histmerge tool, if I understand it properly, it would allow me to recreate the Sibtain 007 page with some of its original history by merging the history of the Mama page into it. Because I intentionally did

1006:

revision history. There should be a copy commmand like in normal stuff so you don't lose things if you don't want to. Unless someone has a solution, whatever I do will be a compromise and I will have lost something. The only things that are intact (thank god) are the two archives. Perhaps I should

1001:

I can't think of a way to get this back the way to even as it was before I started moving. If I move Mama back to Sibtain, Sibtain will be okay, although not completely, because I've lost some of the revision history (I intentionally restored only part of it), and I don't see a way to get it back.

894:

I've been thinking about this a bit more. I think when I first moved, I should have kept a redirect. Then, I could have done everything I did to the Mama SPI but restored Sibitain without the redirect. If I'm correct on that, then would a revert of what I did put everything back to the way it was,

109:

Hello, I'm Berean Hunter. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dragunov sniper rifle because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Knowledge as a "soapbox" are against Knowledge policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to

7929:

I blocked for one week because the IPs are dynamic and he only uses them for a day. It wouldn't do much good to block the IPs for very long because of that. I haven't finished assessing the IP range contribs to check for collateral damage if blocked. If I do block a range however, it would be for

2256:

Dialects, slang terms and colloquialisms are region specific and not only do I understand that but also very much respect it. The spelling and existence of certain words I will dispute passionately. If the Oxford dictionary does not have the word, and there are more than enough sources on line as

9267:

page, there seems to be some sock puppetry going on for 76.117.58.67, who you blocked for one year, 2 months ago. Under IP addresses 50.166.46.164 and 209.212.4.2 there are edits being made which are essentially the same edit that got 76.117.58.67 in trouble. The address 50.166.46.164 has only 7

9183:

thread, I changed my !vote to acknowledge some initial engagement by the editor. I don't find being accused of serious misconduct nor of having a personality flaw (or however one might fairly categorize being called "hypersensitive") is fair, appropriate, or good practice. As they used to say on

7676:

affects two other editors and 92slim had only left a brief comment at the bottom. Andy had dealt with the post correctly. Tiptoe used "rv vandalism" as a rationale to remove and clearly it isn't. He is attempting to use his feud with this editor as justification for things that aren't justified.

7594:

measure your words. Do not bluntly accuse someone who's clearly passionate of an assortment of behavioural and moral failings. You could've chosen to ignore the epithet, or let somebody else strike it out; by revoking their TPA, you've effectively ostracised an aggrieved editor. When he returns,

6411:

I use the "green on black" gadget to read Knowledge, to reduce eyestrain. I find your talk page almost impossible to read - I have to rightclick and highlight to read anything which isn't a link. As I recall, this is something to do with you setting the font colour on the page. Could you perhaps

5081:

Thank you for pointing that out. That account is actually the master because it is oldest. I didn't notice before so I went back and moved the casename and archive to reflect that. I've left a note for her to not remove the block notice again. If you notice on her talk page that account had been

2367:

Do you seriously have nothing better to do with your time than behave with juvenile intent? Blocking someone, who has a better respect and understanding of the English language, from making edits is exceptionally immature. I completely agree with Andrwme and their assessment of American English.

8683:

For the time being I'm still a trainee, actually; there's apparently some discussion on the topic on the CU-list but I'm no hurry as the difference between trainee or not is mostly ceremonial and I don't intend on training anyone else anytime soon. But it's a good idea to mention my setup on my

6610:

Yes, for Steverci and 92slim, I had notice their parallel pov editing aims on the small number of articles they edit, often backing-up or restoring each others edits if they are reversed, and their similar "absences". However, I don't think they are the same people (Steverci doesn't do 92slim's

9150:

Regarding the sex thing - absolutely. The other editor removed the sentence, and I acknowledged it was a good thing. I don't want to relitigate (as it were) my concerns, and I'm sure you don't want me to, either - you've either read the diffs or not. Regardless, do you really mean (I hope your

1097:

No worries, as far as I can tell, you couldn't fix it anyway, and, besides, it's my fault, not yours. I've left a question on the pump. I was going to ask DoRD before you (no offense), but based on his contribution history, he wasn't around, whereas, luck you, you were. If there's no technical

771:

Thanks. I have been unable to improve the article further. I go to the school system office every few weeks and am told someone will contact me. One person left me a message and said the city owns the empty building and so I would have to ask them. One of these days I'll remember to ask them.—

704:

A Knowledge article on this school would surely mention the history of the "school" during those 82 years and of course the 25-50 years the school existed before that. But the building the school now occupies is what makes it notable. An elementary school is not notable enough for Knowledge. A

700:

The problem is that the elementary school currently occupying the building was in another location for 82 years. Longer if you go by what the school was called for 25 to 50 years before that (I'm having trouble pinning down accurate sources). The other location has been vacant for seven years.

5419:

We have a heavy case load at SPI already with a backlog. We need editors to help produce the evidence to make it plain enough to see the comparisons. Since you are already familiar with the master that means that you are the best one to describe the case. It should be written to those who are

8597:

That deep blue for "admin needed" seems a lot too passive to me... I'm thinking maybe some not-too-agressive-orange? It would fit the general scheme of the CUrequest (but "admin request" instead). I also think the "hold" and "more info" should be different shades, even if they're kept in the

5425:

The case sat for 16 days and no one else took it up; he didn't stand in anyone's way if they wanted to investigate. I have to admit that if you had spoke to me as I have seen that you spoke to him, I probably would have closed it much earlier. Trying to call someone out in a report for their

4754:

I was looking at the unblock request of Smhhalataei and did some checking/behavioral investigating. From the technical perspective, I agree with Bbb23's assessment of Peacemaker11 being possible to Smhhalataei and based upon the behavior it seems more than likely. I also looked into 700ali,

1125:

not restore the Sibtain-only history when I restored the Mama page, I still don't see a way to get that back. Perhaps Anthony, if he responds, will know. At the moment, I'm fairly stressed out, and, mostly, I'm hoping I'll be able to sleep tonight as I'm prone to insomnia anyway.--

8261:

As you know, the communities on WMF projects are largely independent of each other. Looking at that user's contribution history on Wiktionary, I don't see any clear indication that he is using socks disruptively there. I can't just block him based on en.wiki checkuser results.

1695:

designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com" . In fact, this disclaimer appears at the bottom of every page. All the review pages have multiple links that say "Buy the xxxxx on Amazon". Sounds like "aff. links" to me.

476:

So, STOP Judging and act stupidly ! You want to chace SPAM, LOOK HERE - these are websites with thousands of links in wikipedia and no one does anything from different STUPID reasons like - is a "notable source" - so WHAT ? this is giving rights to pages like "livescience" or

2161:, whom you blocked a couple years ago, it seems to me that this person is answering in good faith, has a better understanding of policies and the reasons for the block, and might benefit the Knowledge project if given another chance. But I won't unblock if you disagree. ~ 8350:(that was closed without action a couple of weeks later) about a suspected sock of indefinitely blocked user David Hedlund, an IP that is now wreaking havoc on the articles that Hedlund did the same on last year, obviously being out on a mission, just like Hedlund was. 10429:

IP making a series of edits at: Pakistani nuclear tests, BLPs of Pakistani scientists involved in those tests, Pakistani nuclear organisations, pages on places where the tests were done, and IIRC Indian nuclear tests, as you say "all geolocate to same place and same

8318:

You're right. I suspect that some form of promotion is going on here. Considering that other editors could introduce and reintroduce this material, I thought it best to deal with the source to have the debates all in one place instead of scattered across various talk

7192:

It's multi-meaning. I now see the original images description says the two on the right are the same person. So, maybe friendly fire, or zapping one's alter ego, maybe boomerang, maybe betrayal, or just a silly image (the last one being my interpretation). Anyway, it

4175:

Yeah, I'm paying for it, too. I have three and one is just over 16 years old with hyperthyroidism...she has become exceptionally vocal at all hours of the day and night which is driving me bonkers. If her meds don't get this under control then I'll be needing meds

2847:, was blocked from editing by you and I'm struggling to understand why since she appears only to have been editing her sandbox (at least from her account - a searched of the contributions from the blocked IP address turned up nothing). The student is part of the 1691:, I expected to find a statement that they do not accept payment from vendors. On the contrary, not only is there no such statement, but at the bottom of the page, "www.electrictoothbrushking.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an 7671:

I'm blocking based on observed behavior but this is not necessarily exclusive as a pass for anyone else's behavior. Some of the comments refactored have nothing to do with the above named editor and other combative actions are exhibited towards other editors.

3283: 9207:"). That is a cue that it is time to back away. Since we are a community, it is usually best for those editors to back away and if there are significant ongoing concerns then other editors will raise those without having the appearance of it being unilateral. 5196:

All the IP edits I've suspected of being from Eleanor's sockpuppets are showing as coming from Indonesian IPs, which I have guessed is Eleanor's home country. I have no knowledge of Indonesian, so I can't speak to the linguistic fluency of "her" edits there.

9178:

You've been around longer than I, I think (but I'm no spring chicken), so I don't mean to pass judgment on your comments nor throw acronyms at you. I know that I work very hard to improve the encyclopedia, including fairly helping others. If you look at the

4755:

Peaceful110, and N.mashoof. These 3 accounts seem very likely to be the same individual. However, the group of accounts seem to be technically unrelated to each other. The two groups also have a very different grasp of the English language. (Compare: 700ali

3252: 748:

has been solved at least for now. :) I've added the page to my watchlist although I'm still hit & miss on getting time to be on a computer enough for it to matter but hopefully other well-meaning wikistalkers will watchlist and/or improve the article as

1276:

As far as the IPs, the two that were included seem to be the only ones from which the problematic users connect. The activity from others in that class-C net has been minimal and some time ago, so it seems they might be statically allocated (fortunately).

8290:

Thanks for bringing your concerns about this book to RSN; I was considering taking the same action. I'm sure you've also thought of the possibility that the editor who is so aggressively referencing it might be closely associated with the author (or

9783:

If I hadn't gotten to bed I wouldn't be able to function at all this morning. I will look at this a bit later today as I'm soon to head for the store and trying to beat incoming storms. Trying to clear out my watchlist for obvious things before

6070:. I hope that no further action is needed from my side (except that *always* asking before editing if in doubt is good practice - I'll keep that in mind for now), and that everything is hopefully clear, but I can't be sure about that of course. 5907:

I'm waking up slowly this morning and not processing things quickly yet. My coffee hasn't kicked in. :) I plan to look at this case and others later today but didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you. I'm only up for simple edits at the

1098:

solution. I have an idea what to do that I think will incur the minimum loss. I'd leave the Mama page alone. Right now, it's precisely what I want. I'd copy and past the new case date back to Sibtain and repoint to the archive. I'd mention that

3617:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

6350:

I hadn't completed looking and keep getting interrupted in real life...sorry for the choppy start. There are others but I need to find them again. This yo-yo keeps edit-warring the images across several articles and I know it goes back a good

1025:

and co-mingled. I didn't see the Mama history as distinct. I would try reversing your steps to get back as they were before. At this late hour, I'm getting tired and admittedly might not be seeing the solution clearly...dinner made me drowsy.

10389:

The IPs all geolocate to same place and same provider. I think they are all him. I have his current talk page, and the article talk page watchlisted. If he doesn't respond but continues editing then we may be blocking based on a failure to

2368:

Although, someone who does that appears to have too much time on their hands. On the other hand, they could very well be an English professor for all we know. I am not here to judge. We're all adults here. Handle the situation with tact.

9328:

Given that Jonahthunder's edit went in a minute after your protection, it seems at least possible and perhaps likely that he saw no warning. I would suggest asking him if that's what happened. If so it would seem like an unblock is

6214:

Just in case you are not paying attention to ANI: I think you should reconsider the IP block. Reversion of vandalism is a 3rr exemption and altering others talkpage comments illegitimately is a definition under talk page vandalism.

4217:

they were using for this page has been blocked and they will probably become smarter to avoid the same mistakes they made previously that allowed for detection. Do I just file an additional SPI? Seems like I could be fighting the

796:

As it turns out, someone with the city did have something and he's going to send it to me. Whether it counts as a reliable source by Knowledge standards i can't say, but it may have documentation which includes reliable sources.—

8295:

the author) -- especially now that he has admitted "discussing the book with the author". I'm not sure how that could be proved without a CheckUser search, or maybe not even then; but you would know much more about that than I.

7086: 5937:. Though i did indeed spend quite some time filing it, i guess the closing is for the best, as such a long list probably wouldn't have been accepted anyways. I do however still believe that a number of the listed socks should be 4040:

Dear Sir, Do you have a list of names of the Officers and Acting Officers in the picture with DD Porter & staff on the USS Malvern 1864? I am trying to Identify the man 3rd from the right. He may be my Gr. Gr. Grandfather??

705:

historic elementary school is, though it is the building that is historic. The elementary school's previous building might be, but I thought it was just too far gone to save, unlike the historic building where the school is now.

4789: 7828:

they aren't entirely unsubstantiated. I blocked IPs that had been used by someone socking and chose to give the benefit of a doubt since I was concerned that somebody was trying to do a joe job and frame Tiptoe. The IP in this

3315:

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the

6141:. Usually, when I see editors dropping off works in Further reading sections, they are driveby attempts at promotion without those who are doing it so much as taking the time to improve the articles in any way. The editor's 2626:

I would consider them if I was privy to them. Admins have no problem being vocal when they want so they are capable of posting here. You cannot proxy for them. Socking goes hand-in-hand with other policy violations usually.

644:

I'm glad to see you back, Berean Hunter, particularly around SPI. ;) (tps) Anyway, to answer your question above: yes, they did have another account that happened to be making some of the same edits, so I blocked it. Cheers

659:

Good work. Feels good to be back; I've got a busy schedule and plenty of projects coming up but I'm going to try to get back into the groove on wiki. From looking around, I'd say that it is as insane and chaotic as it ever

2611:, and many other users including Admins agree. I feel it was wrong to block him for sockpuppetry, it may be more appropriate to unblock him and re block him for edit warring. Please consider the toughts of all the users.-- 1640:

Anyway, would you call adding a reference like this spam: to: "Claims have been made that electric toothbrushes are more effective than manual ones as they are less dependent upon a patient's personal brushing technique."

7696:

does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or

3320: 7082: 7066: 9557: 9510: 7589:

This is not a level playing field; when you block someone, you establish yourself in a position of power. If they're berating you, it should be hardly surprising. If your aim's to make the situation any better, you

5143:'s opinion would be useful here on whether they could be the same. After blocking Dreadney's IP range, I get the feeling that they went shopping around for a new set of proxies but have only just begun to use these. 3325:

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the

5358:

What specific messages are you seeing when you try? Is there a block number or autoblock number, block reason and who blocked it? Since I've checked against rangeblocks and found nothing, I'll need you to help me

3621:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

8664:

color scheme selector. I've used it for years although I was being lazy and tweaking by hand. Your userpage needs a minor update to SPI clerk and not trainee. I was looking to see if you declared your OS. I use

10433:

The behavioural evidence is also, I think, quite obvious, as in IPs repeating the same edits by PeerBaba that I reverted or corrected. For example, there were quotes that were changed several time to a version

9283:

I've blocked both IPs for a year. I would have considered adding semi-protection except that I was aware that you are editing there and that would cut you off. Any chance on getting you to create an account? :)

4289:

I now see that you have not edited for a month and a half, so I will go ahead and lift the block. If you come back and read this, and you do have a good reason why that was not a good idea, please let me know.

3309: 3296: 3278: 3265: 6611:

obnoxious and offensive edit summaries) though they might be connected. But I think there is more than enough sustained bad editing behavior to get 92slim blocked, if someone wanted to catalogue his offenses.

3331: 2025: 5444:

You can run SPI any way you want, but I'm not going to spend hours tracking socks just to be shouted at after filing a report, and then have the report dismissed like this, without anyone even looking at it.

7394:

I caught it myself and undid this before you made it to my page. I didn't realize that he was proxying that personal attack and thought he was the source of it. I apologized before the fish was reeled in. :)

3841: 3470: 3348: 3159: 2342:

Duly noted and I will take that into consideration in the future. That account isn't innocent so don't worry about tarnishing an editor's reputation there. I would be surprised if they ever use that account

3716: 2523: 3290: 3259: 10298: 10049: 4326:

in 2014. So far in 2015, the IP activity has been low so maybe we managed to shake him from there and leaving it unblocked should be fine. After looking at the range contribs, can you see why I blocked

3327: 10862: 10678: 10132: 4438: 3974: 2413: 10586: 10494: 10215: 9155:

was an overstatement on your part) that either of us is editing for "no overriding reason", or in a manner that includes ], ], or other ]. I would be stunned if you said that you did see such things.

7466:

Please amend your blocking summary; I don't see any behaviour on his part that even remotely resembles nationalism, and the blocking summary is not a platform for you to denigrate the blocked editor.

1534:

Thanks, Mike, for clearing that up. I'll see if I can track down the full citations so that those references aren't solely based on potentially bad URLs. Nick Spengler 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

11138: 11046: 10770: 9043: 10954: 5554: 9867: 1241:

Not necessary since they are likely throw-away accounts and some may be doubtable concerning the evidence (not worth deliberating over). Those accounts are only germane if someone uses them again.

9958: 7703:: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates— 1715:

to be professional journals or other forms of professional publications and not websites. Anyone can own a website and they are not vetted by scholars and editors as formal publications would be.

7290: 5153: 939:

coincidentally. I think I got you fixed up by my last edit which left the path for anyone with the prior case to follow. I don't see any deleted history so you are good to go...no big errors. :)

11309:, is continuing for some time now through another 42 range while disrupting the same articles and evading his block. Here's a revision history of an article he disrupts through various 42 IPs. 4883:, along with an IP 173.61.226.153. Created 23 March, same narrow focus on alternative & metal articles, inserting obscure sub-submusic genres such as doom & sludge metal and the like. 2017: 2001: 7085:

which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the

851:

Berean, I was trying to do a rather complex thing at SPI and I think I've screwed up. I'm not sure how to recover from it, so I've stopped as I don't want to make it worse than it already is.

7285:

Thank you, I had not seen this. If they remove it, I'll let it stand. Although this doesn't apply in this case, if they are sockpuppets we would still restore sock tags and block notices per

3825: 3809: 3614: 3454: 3438: 3143: 3127: 4924:

76.24.179.249 is also Metalvayne. I've hardblocked both IPs and Whiskeydemon as Metalvayne. The above account will be indeffed once he is placed with the right master. I abhor genre warring.

4816: 9128:

Do you acknowledge that in the recent thread on Packer's talk page that both of you may have misjudged and were a bit quick to accuse? Do you not see that you may have done something wrong?

4798: 3700: 3684: 3668: 2515: 2499: 7813:

are sanctionable. Tiptoe lost his patience with the junk that keeps being posted on that page and the antics of 92slim and others; while your rundown is factual, it is lacking in context.

7065: 6535:

all took "short leaves" recently, did you notice? Is there an Extremist Armenians Congress or some in-job training for their WP editors somewhere these days? Ah, one is in Baku, Armenia,

6145:

had that appearance to me. I checked the first article and saw that it wasn't cited or used there but did not check the second. I stand corrected on the second. Structurally, the article

266: 250: 7567:

reply. We will simply have to agree to disagree concerning his behavior as I do find that he is involved in the nationalistic edit warring. He had not appealed his block but rather left

6066:. I've been requested to edit the article (which I've did, and then reverted it 2 minutes because afterwards I didn't 'trust' the change) by a user with the exactly same nickname and IP 8893:. All three accounts are technically related. The first two are confirmed to each other because of the technical evidence and what they were doing. The third is not confirmed. However, 8572: 7329:

Be careful with the positioning of tools, too. You may be used to certain things being laid out in a certain way only to find that things are reordered. Mass delete can be dangerous. :)

4422: 4406: 3958: 3950: 3934: 2009: 6089:

Nothing further is required on your part and thank you for disclosing what happened. That sockmaster didn't do you or the others any favors as he nearly had several of you blocked for

9027: 9011: 8012: 7889: 7076: 5411: 4323: 3817: 3692: 3446: 3135: 3073: 2435: 2138: 11471:

bot on the basis of how long the thread had lingered on the active page. It doesn't seem sensible to have issues essentially closed by automatic archiving, but is that how it works?

7315:

Talk about habits to break - I keep on clicking the Twinkle arv link to report vandals to AIV after I've looked at their contribs during processing an already-existing AIV report. --

8338: 6450: 5538: 5522: 3676: 2855:). I'd appreciate if you could provide me a bit more information so that I can understand the basis for your decision as I'll need to sort out how to handle her course obligations. 2507: 274: 8817: 7873:

Thank you for responding to the concerns raised at the SPI. I think it be best to do a range block on those IPs. They seem to sprout out everywhere. Is that what you'll be doing?

5136: 258: 7754:

a different post which discussed sourcing as "deleting per WP:Not a Forum". This was in fact discussing the article and sources where "not a forum" is not a reasonable rationale.

2939: 2635:

are part of what is going on here and it belongs to multiple accounts. Edit-warring is but one facet of the situation and it would be incorrect to distill it down to solely that.

4598: 4414: 3942: 3833: 3462: 3151: 11536:

and this particular user is listed in the second report (two were open on the same page) with evidence presented by Keri. In my statement on their page, I piped it to just say

9019: 7832:

is a sock. I've been watching since that case to stay abreast of the situation. I would like to point out that Tiptoe, in his rant on his talk page displayed behavior that is

7780:

which included the ad hominem attack "You also must be a particularly dim person to be incapable of realizing that April 24th is not the same date as April 25th." followed by

6063: 3708: 6163:

shouldn't contain cited works.."This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." You may want to review the

4946:

Hm, Gunmetal Angel...can't say I've had the pleasure in tangling with that one. Thanks for the responses, it's amazing how much of a time sink these sorts of people become.

5530: 2787:

and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

1441:

to the articles in question so that you bolster their notability. I'm also going to leave you a welcome on your talk page which should help you learn and navigate Knowledge.

282: 6151:

might be improved by relabeling the current Reference section as "Notes" and then having a section, "References", for the general references below that as described in the

5838:

with Tirgil34, which require administrator attention. Lately various IPs starting with 176.219... have been accusing several users of being Tirgil34 socks at my talk page.

1007:

try the Pump to see if anyone there has a solution. I didn't think that Knowledge did this sort of thing. I thought every step was kept somewhere so it could be put back.--

593:

I've indefinitely blocked the spammer, their talk page access has been revoked due to continued NPA-violating garbage, and I've added the website to the local blacklist. --

9588: 9514: 9408: 4430: 3966: 6877:"Question: Did CIA, White House and Pentagon managed to bribe Knowledge to carefully censor the info so that wikipedia is becoming an effective Western propaganda tool ?" 2093:

Thanks for doing that clerical stuff on the talkpage at the Dempsey article. I tried explaining to that guy how it worked, but he was convinced we were hiding something.

9035: 8366: 8050: 1102:

of the Sibtain revision history is lost, but some of it can be found at the Mama page, and that would, unfortunately, be the end of it. Hopefully, in your drowsy state (

7114: 1395:

so that you understand what does and does not constitute vandalism here on Knowledge. I haven't seen where Mike Searson has done anything like that. If you can show me

1110:), you can follow this. I'll probably wait until at least tomorrow before doing it unless someone comes up with something this evening before I'm off to try sleeping.-- 693:

The problem is that a historic school has changed names. It is of course Knowledge policy (or at least a guideline) that we use the current building name, in this case

10672: 9169:

in that one regard (done in good faith, and understandably, I assure you) obviates all other concerns raised and as well as our work in cleaning up the problems found.

6544: 5546: 4912: 687: 7837: 5941:. Is there any prejudice towards filing a new investigation with a shorter list of socks and more concicely presented evidence? I also suspect that Tirgil34 has been 192: 10378:(I haven't run the IPs for intersections but I did check their /24 ranges and saw that he wasn't jumping in them but was rather consistent at the specific addresses) 8906: 2379: 2124: 681: 11273: 6385:

It is disruptive editing because he keeps reverting without using the talk page..and making the appearances of other IPs; I don't buy the forgetting to sign in bit.

734: 8818: 5037:

I've blocked that IP for a month and semi-protected the article. Don't worry about adding to the SPI report at this time; the case is already archived. Good catch.

4801:, which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! 4350: 3631: 3580: 2431: 1067: 936: 180: 9359: 1892:

Hehe, maybe we should use the hidden categories for characterizing socks. I can't write what I think of some of them...those categories would get me into trouble.

8391: 2147: 869:

And this was just my first step. Had this completed properly, I planned to do something else with Group 2 (these are the groups CUed at the bottom of the page).

9277: 7455: 7388: 9659: 9655: 8774: 8752: 8212: 4642:. I see that you've posted this at the help desk and the article talk page so it may be best to let the dialog run its course to gain more input. I do see the 2445:

AND that you were edit-warring behind those IPs. When the semi-protection expires, if you persist in your behavior then the protection times will be increased.

11553: 11518:

all sock blocks for the attention of a checkuser (say here if I should) but failing that, and to avoid wasting everyone's time, please bring me up to date. --

8351: 6093:. If he is still hanging out in IRC, you should consider letting him have it for manipulating people that way. He should be banned from any Wiki IRC channels. 4663: 1502:

as goodreads is primarily user contributed content and not reliable as a citation, and as an external link doesn't really fall into the accepted EL criteria.

11632: 8620:

Go for it. :) I'm trying to reduce that eyestrain factor so as long as they aren't too saturated and burning holes to the back of my skull, I'm fine with it.

6979: 6676: 6662: 6648: 6634: 6620: 4972: 1366:

So asking for a source is now considered vandalism? If you want to clear anything up add some reliable third party sources to your poorly written articles.--

932: 859: 694: 196: 8410: 7263: 7245: 7231: 7206: 7187: 5006: 1340: 160: 11464: 9641: 9373: 9310: 9296: 7996: 7359: 6995: 6790: 6532: 6243: 5372: 5149: 5018: 4714: 4696: 4674: 4081: 3233: 2407: 1614: 996: 952: 9246: 9220: 9193: 9141: 7978: 7957: 7943: 7924: 7909: 7407: 6106: 5770:

IP blocked and articles protected. Absent other proof of a connection, I would say that he did a modified cut & paste with Barefact's earlier comment.

4864: 4741: 4624: 4366: 4340: 2832: 2648: 2458: 1958: 1592: 1575: 212: 11365: 11347: 11230: 9827: 9797: 9778: 9748: 9730: 9698: 9258: 8137: 7806: 7416: 6339: 6331: 6327: 5426:(perceived) inexperience is a bit bitey, don't you think? What is that old expression about catching flies...now was that honey or vinegar that works? :) 5325: 5025:. Sorry to bug you with this, but I'm not seeing how to add an IP address to a suspected sockpuppet's list. Can you point me the way? Thanks in advance. 4791: 4305: 4149: 2323: 2134: 1306: 1270: 834: 791: 762: 697:. I have used names for buildings in articles I have written only to have the articles moved. So I knew the current name for this building was the best. 11480: 11452: 8701: 8678: 8655: 8633: 8592: 8566: 8332: 6506: 6480: 6462: 6440: 6398: 6364: 6290: 4249: 2938:) which is indeed more active than there are good edits from other users on that range. You can review the cumulative edits for the range just for 2014 2587: 2245: 2118: 528: 466: 404: 11504: 9605: 9582: 9466: 8273: 4880: 4203: 4189: 4160:

to look you over after our recent discussion and liked pretty much everything about you . . . ... except I am sorry to hear about the cats. Einar aka

2935: 2464: 1484: 1454: 1168: 816: 9341: 8897:

of them is related to Sherlock4000, so you can't tag them as CU-blocked socks of Sherlock4000. Any other tag short of that is up to you. Make sense?--

8385: 7055: 7039: 5480: 5457: 5439: 4230: 3300:. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. 3269:. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. 2206: 1922: 1860:

I'm not sure that I believe them. It doesn't jump out as obvious when I look at editing comparisons. Do you think they are the same based on behavior?

1785: 1254: 1228: 1210: 8913: 8725: 8615: 8256: 8227: 8191: 8172: 7632:

you'll find that 92slim is pursuing an Armenian nationalistic agenda, twisting what the sources say, making very "selective" quotes, piping links to

6852: 6838: 6571: 6380: 6051: 5981: 5963: 5921: 5902: 5805: 5783: 5765: 5707: 2981: 2955: 2905: 2887: 2304: 2218: 1824: 1804: 1529: 1378: 11487:

usually considered closed as no admin was compelled to take action. Some are closed discretely while others time out and the bot archives them. See

7857: 7822: 7604: 7584: 7554: 7539: 7521: 7502: 6966: 6117:

Hi Berean Hunter -- I appreciate your taking the time to patrol, and you are probably right much more often than you are wrong, but in your edit to

4058: 1728: 1300: 588: 566: 113:

Hello, no problem. I just thought that it will be helpful for readers, because you can rotate 3d model by mouse and see how it looks in real life.

8943: 8929: 8512: 8438: 7349: 7324: 7310: 6904: 6866: 5403: 5241:, you may want to go ahead and place this in a report; I've got my hands full at the moment and it may be a while before I could get to it. Cheers, 2667: 2356: 1912: 1887: 1873: 1399:

as evidence then we can discuss further. In the meantime, you may want to go light on using terms like vandal and culprit as it may come across as

1119: 1043: 1016: 980: 974: 926: 11431: 11324: 9122: 8505: 7475: 5265: 5254: 5203: 5169: 5106: 5095: 5061: 5050: 4955: 4937: 3896: 2080: 1511: 1357: 1083: 1061: 673: 631: 613: 11458: 11254: 8807: 8788: 8768: 8473: 8392: 6201: 6187: 3214: 1420:

Arguments carry their own weight standing upon logic as well as our policies and guidelines. When there are good sound arguments, you don't need

855: 6912: 6885:

it's clear that he believes Knowledge is nothing more than "western propaganda" and that he is unwilling and/or unable to be an honest editor.--

6843:

Let's see--the Montreal massacre isn't related to the subject of the article...oops. It is. Your bad. See my comments on the Talk page, please.

6539:. Thank you for being so keen to protect and develop Knowledge. We IPs also help occasionally, not all of us are vandals. Have a good Sunday. -- 4319: 4029: 3771: 3525: 1878:

I am only relying on the confession and I suppose that's no indication of honesty behind it :-) Do we have a catgeory for wannabee fantasists?

9068: 8055: 7844:. If he isn't E4024, he certainly is acting like him. Tiptoe degenerated into ad hominem attacks and disruptive editing and was blocked for it. 7652: 6844: 6802: 6732: 5579: 4876: 4463: 3999: 3866: 3741: 3495: 3184: 2683: 2557: 2274: 2258: 2050: 1022: 654: 307: 6449:

It may well be standard black, but black text on a black background is not the easiest to read. I found the thread where I raised it before -

5129: 5031: 4493: 3033: 3006: 337: 9098: 7892:

network which is very large...I'm about to head for bed but I'll let you scout this to assess how much are sock edits (perhaps more than the

7814: 7596: 7546: 7513: 7467: 6605: 5755: 2972:

Thanks very much for the clarification. I'll look into it on my end. We at the university have a policy of pithing these people once caught.

2172: 1742: 1700: 1660: 1180: 7734:"deleting as off topic and not a forum. Talk page is already too long and full." added back by the posting editor, 92slim wasn't in this yet 6773:

of uncited material in a different article is equally unwelcome. The source that you attempt to cite above is NOT a reliable source as seen

6758: 4646:

being used in reference to the named event in some Google searches...looks interchangeable. The abbreviated form should be acceptable as in

2784: 184: 11248: 10932: 10748: 10371: 9198:

Hypersensitivity is what led to not just one but two editors to be quick on the trigger in that talk page thread as well as the continuing

8240: 7461: 6008: 5930: 5887: 5815: 5734: 5609: 4283: 4211: 3777: 3245: 2813: 1969: 1134: 904: 128: 10656: 10564: 9850:

Here's what I have for you so far. I believe this is a start but there may be more IPs or editors; this is useful for filing an SPI case:

6067: 5882: 1754: 1672: 11208: 11116: 10875: 10840: 10691: 8995: 8916:

so I had to redo everything over again. Apparently, I got the tags wrong; I've corrected them now. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

8824:

Hi Berean Hunter, perhaps my findings weren't clear to you, but the tags on three of the blocked accounts can't remain the way they are:

7153: 5748: 5506: 5378: 5229: 5076: 4390: 3918: 3793: 3652: 3422: 3111: 3095: 2483: 1985: 234: 11526: 11024: 10407: 7508:

third the insinuation that he's a sock. You're, of course, aware that 92slim continues to provoke him, despite being repeatedly told to

6255: 5885: 5880: 5878: 5876: 5869: 5662: 5660: 5351: 2791: 2736: 10599: 10507: 7333: 7090: 6020: 5012: 4592: 4586: 3902: 3636: 3406: 3371: 2620: 9937: 9675: 7882: 7560: 6224: 2603:

I suppose if you're really concerned, the user could be unblocked for meatpuppetry and reblocked for edit warring." "<+NotASpy: -->

1580:

Wayback is an excellent tool for that. There is a dead link in the article and marked as such, you might want to try that one, Nick.--

478: 11533: 11151: 11059: 10783: 10028: 9450: 9439: 9390: 7893: 5871: 5742: 5688: 5211: 4169: 3603: 2773: 1348:

Amazing that you were aware of this issue, and who took the action, and created a username that closely matches the blocked users...

10447: 11397: 10967: 8215: 7896:) versus what may be collateral damage. I'll check back in 8 or 9 hours to see what you think. You wrote a good SPI report, btw. :) 6923:

show that he pushes his POV on the Vietnamese wiki and is trying to come here to do the same. His contribs here amount to either a

6131: 5304: 4374: 2993: 2266: 503: 433: 371: 218: 8888: 7707:....Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." 6743:

Search for the book Richthofen" by A.E. Ferko, It has been suggested that he was wounded from behind by one of his own comrades.

4968: 4570: 4559: 1854: 1287:

Thank you for looking over those edits. There were some under other IPs that I wasn't sure about so it needed another set of eyes.

11298: 9407:. There's usually one already, down at the bottom. If this is not done, all the pages that transclude the template are placed in 8979: 7568: 5834:, although since he's already listed at the SPI this could be premature. I also added Barefact to the SPI as possibly engaged in 4035: 2226: 8312: 8200: 7436: 6421: 4048: 11408: 9880: 9104: 9064: 5575: 4459: 4113: 3995: 3862: 3737: 3491: 3180: 3000: 2670:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The User has requested an Unblock ,I have posted it to

2553: 2130: 2046: 1761: 1048:

I'm too tired too do much digging at the moment, but this sounds like a mess. You may need to bring in a histmerge expert like

888: 303: 11488: 11467:. I'm hoping you can provide more insight, because I was uncertain making the edit, and am still unsure what the protocol is. 10908: 10724: 8842: 8543: 6083: 5730: 5720: 5067: 2099: 11606: 9971: 9072: 8882: 6343: 6142: 6004:

Am I crazy, or was this account's very first edit a declaration to an admin that he's (the new editor not the admin) a sock?

5751: 5583: 5490: 4467: 4003: 3870: 3745: 3499: 3188: 2561: 2152: 2054: 311: 10632: 10540: 8974: 8865: 8161: 8154: 8152: 8145: 8143: 8141: 8127: 8119: 8112: 8110: 8108: 8106: 8104: 8102: 8099: 8085: 7948:

I'll also keep an eye out myself for the other IPs. If I see them editing, I'll contact you immediately. Thanks once again,

7020: 6894: 6548: 5740: 5738: 5284:

HI, sorry that i have edited this page, someone told me on irc that he can't edit and requested me to do the edit for him.

4121: 3088: 2383: 2137:

election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the

11293: 10868: 10684: 8450: 8061: 7686:, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and 6540: 6335: 6305: 6267: 5216: 5121: 5022: 4892: 3344: 3305: 3274: 2927: 2336: 1632: 533: 136: 120: 11184: 11092: 10816: 8462: 7766:"deleting vandalism by 92slim (his restoration of a clearly off-topic post that had been deleted per Not a Forum)" with a 7486: 7279: 6167:

to see what I mean. Just a suggestion; I'll leave it to your discretion but it may help prevent future driveby reversions.

6005: 5953: 5950: 5736: 4980: 4092:

I am Aidan's talent agent and he has requested that we update his picture. I can not edit his page as you have it locked.

862:. I think I successfully did that. It appears to be intact along with its original archive, which I didn't want to touch. 10592: 10500: 9651: 9633: 9302: 9269: 8836: 8519: 8207: 7375: 6750: 6323: 5826: 5732: 5727: 5343: 5223:

Should I be alerting you to this stuff here, or adding it to some investigation page? Thanks in advance for help/advice.

4784: 4265: 4050: 3241: 3057: 2864: 2375: 1281: 1179:

As you have blocked one of the accounts in question, you may be interested in adding comment, or taking action on my SPI

11568: 11392: 11000: 7690:. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note..." Additionally, " 935:

but not eradicate the Sibtain case since none of the listed socks were tied to the master. I wonder if anyone looked at

11144: 11052: 10776: 10304: 10055: 9761:

got there! Apart from that, what do you need to know? I've been discussing the issue with another 'involved' editor at

9318: 9301:

Yes, I will. Thank you! Feel free to add semi-protection if you see it fit to do so. Thank you again for your efforts!

9204: 8859: 8204: 8029:. As someone who was editing the subject in real time, the page histories look truncated and I suspect it's because of 7784:"not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity"...yet another ad hominem attack. 7781: 7777: 7773: 7767: 7763: 7757: 7751: 7747: 7741: 7737: 7731: 6311: 5789: 5653: 5651: 5420:

entirely unfamiliar. You want to appeal to a wider audience than just those who have worked specific cases in the past.

3401: 3358:

by probably a close friend as some one who can maybe help me with a US Arny uniform question. What era is the uniform

2427: 176: 94: 9471:

Hi, another thing, this time articles... if you re-protect (or alter the prot settings for) a page that already has a

6900:

Honest ? Dear me, what is your definition of "honest" ? Honest mean delete the edit TWICE without reasonable reasons ?

6810: 6738: 6717: 5850: 4845: 1637:

Hello, got your message and understand it perfectly, sorry. It happens when you do not read the rules, it's my fault.

11223: 10960: 10138: 9820: 9771: 9723: 9668: 9543: 9520:

Also, if you set the page as being subject to pending changes (whether or not it's protected), you should also add a

6653:

You can incorporate a limited company for all I care. By the way, you did use several IP's, that's been confirmed. --

5300: 4756: 4105: 1197:

I wish I had looked. :) I was writing up a report which I haven't finished/filed...I'll be along momentarily. Cheers,

810: 785: 726: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 9913: 6723:

This is about an archived sockpuppetry investigation, so no, no one is trying to set anyone up. Good one, though. --

6702: 3220: 1191: 11427: 10221: 8741: 8302: 6801:

Greetings. What principle/tenet/guideline of Knowledge do you think the Montreal plaque photo contravenes? Regards

6672: 6644: 6616: 6112: 5999: 4916: 3060:, for "the diligence of looking things up and the enjoyment that comes from discovery", for fighting vandalism and 2679: 1424:...often they cause more harm than good as in this case. "Chap490" and "Appe499" have been confirmed as socks by a 499: 479:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=all&search=Europeana.eu&fulltext=Search

442: 429: 367: 166: 10004: 8553:

the switch on the SPI status entry template. I hope the color is okay; the other one was a little hard on my eyes.

7678: 7673: 6903:

RAF, if you don't want to be doubted, please refrain from doing the things which tempt other people to doubt you.

6766: 4236:

Yes, you would want to file again. I also agree with your assessment...cards are on the table forcing their hand.

9873: 9714: 7962: 7125: 4767: 4571:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rules_of_Wikipedia_were_violated_for_the_good_of_Russian_murderers

4255: 3340: 3301: 3270: 2778: 2391: 1550: 1480: 1336: 11380:

How is telling someone to go to hell not a personal attack? Why would you close it? Yes, I will challenge that.

8399: 7705:

these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

6192:

Helpful point, well made. Done (though I'll check the guidelines you suggest for further possibilities). Thanks!

9964: 9337: 6817: 5664:

Could you semi-protect them too? Also, these IPv6 accounts both start with 2A02:908:E620:A260... and locate to

5615: 5177:

Like Eleanor's, Louis' topics were mostly European royalty, though covering a period a few hundred years later.

4564: 3353: 3062: 2923: 135:

If the models were free then the links might be suitable but the site is designed to sell them. Since you have

10902: 10718: 9703:

Yay! If you look at my recent edit history, you may find another candidate who I think is a sock of indeffed

8960: 8550: 7008: 6319: 6315: 4759: 1646: 10626: 10534: 8963: 3068: 2998:

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been

2608: 1832: 102: 11178: 11086: 10919: 10888: 10810: 10735: 10704: 10470: 10342: 10093: 876:

about this rather than message back and forth, but there you have it. Please respond as quickly as you can.

11241:...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I shall strive to be worthy of the honor accorded me. -- 10994: 10895: 10711: 10643: 10612: 10551: 10520: 10176: 9453:

and leaving me the message. I'll try to remember to not add a tag at all on templates when protecting them.

9383: 7432: 6155:. This would allow the works cited to be emphasized separately from the Further reading general works. Per 4155: 2251: 2158: 1962: 1936: 1928: 1750: 1668: 1562:

is helpful for cleaning up linkrot and allows the reader to access the obsoleted pages. You might try that.

554: 11195: 11164: 11103: 11072: 10926: 10827: 10796: 10742: 10359: 10310: 10259: 10110: 10061: 3284:

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

3253:

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

690:

and saw your name. Since it starts with B, that's why I saw it first. But you might know who can help me.

11310: 11242: 11236: 11011: 10980: 10650: 10619: 10558: 10527: 10193: 10144: 9907: 9735:

You may need to help me out with that one. It's late here and I'm on the tired side; headed for bed soon.

9615: 9422: 7623: 7119: 6696: 6668: 6640: 6612: 6557: 5331: 4065: 2848: 2797: 2675: 2593: 1164: 1156: 11202: 11110: 10834: 10276: 10227: 9998: 9762: 9566: 9548: 9481: 8934:

Too many things going on at the same time. I know what that's like. Thanks for retagging the accounts.--

11524: 11171: 11079: 11018: 10803: 10335: 10086: 9924: 9893: 9199: 8218:

qualify for indefinite blocking at Wiktionary. Do you have any reccommendations on what could be done?

7865: 7104: 6770: 5856: 4734: 4617: 1944: 1817: 1778: 846: 604: 38: 10015: 9984: 6596:), but it must take a big effort to do these kind of successive POV edits and yet try to save face. -- 5673: 4763: 2394:

was a good edit? I see your account is already blocked for socking so I'll add a hardblock to your IP.

11600: 10987: 10915: 10731: 10169: 9931: 9333: 8876: 8125: 8123: 8121: 7366: 6230:

I've just posted there. There was no vandalism and both editors know better than to do what they did.

6209: 3607: 2654: 1767: 343: 10639: 10547: 10022: 8285: 7481:

He is involved in nationalistic edit warring concerning Turkish/Armenian disputes, in fact he is an

11510: 11191: 11099: 10856: 10823: 10316: 10252: 10067: 8970: 8347: 8018: 7294: 7241: 7202: 7149: 6870: 6147: 6118: 5636: 5279: 4976: 4301: 4279: 2919: 2745: 2688: 1842: 572: 124: 11007: 10382:

You may try running the IPs against the master and sock to see what results you may come up with.

10150: 8030: 5823: 5391:"unprofessional", and seems more like an attempt to show what power they have than anything else. 139:

links to this site since July of last year, it seems clear that this is promotional with a likely

11627: 11548: 11499: 11447: 11342: 11268: 10580: 10488: 10443: 10402: 10355: 10233: 10106: 9900: 9792: 9743: 9693: 9645: 9627: 9600: 9461: 9354: 9306: 9291: 9273: 9215: 9136: 8924: 8830: 8802: 8763: 8673: 8628: 8561: 8500: 8433: 8380: 8327: 8251: 8209: 8186: 7991: 7973: 7938: 7904: 7852: 7801: 7579: 7534: 7497: 7450: 7428: 7402: 7344: 7305: 7226: 7182: 7034: 6990: 6961: 6833: 6785: 6754: 6475: 6435: 6393: 6359: 6285: 6238: 6220: 6182: 6101: 6046: 5976: 5916: 5874: 5828: 5800: 5778: 5702: 5475: 5434: 5367: 5347: 5320: 5249: 5164: 5090: 5045: 5001: 4932: 4870: 4859: 4709: 4691: 4658: 4554: 4361: 4335: 4261: 4244: 4184: 4144: 4076: 4054: 3237: 2950: 2882: 2827: 2768: 2643: 2453: 2402: 2351: 2299: 2240: 2212: 2201: 2186: 2113: 1907: 1868: 1723: 1609: 1598: 1570: 1449: 1295: 1249: 1205: 1078: 1038: 991: 947: 921: 829: 757: 668: 626: 583: 523: 461: 399: 207: 155: 47: 17: 10189: 9920: 8101:

Tirgil34 has since been restoring this content in full or in part with numerous confirmed socks,

6705:, caused by 92slim's refusal to drop the stick, with continued accusations about sock puppetry. 5336:

I can't seem to create an account . Can you review why this IP Address was blocked. Thank you.

3334:

of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

2441:

You seem to be in denial that your use of multiple IP ranges and hopping within those ranges is

11132: 11040: 10882: 10764: 10698: 10292: 10272: 10043: 10011: 9991: 9414: 9242: 9189: 9118: 9078: 8853: 8444: 8115: 7953: 7920: 7878: 7628:

The nationalistic editor is 92slim, not Tiptoe. If you look at the edit history of for example

6860: 6536: 6406: 6077: 5589: 4839: 4473: 4009: 3876: 3751: 3505: 3455:

Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians

3194: 3084: 2809: 2616: 2567: 2310: 2105:

You're welcome. This will let all of you involved in the discussion get back to your arguments.

2060: 1601:

and able to edit semi-protected articles, you may place your citations, etc. on the talk pages.

1587: 1524: 1373: 1160: 1049: 745: 317: 10606: 10514: 8492:

and check the "Hide account blocks" and the "Hide temporary blocks" boxes to get this to work.

5839: 4133: 1273:. It was kind of jumbled because it took CU to identify which puppets went with which master. 11519: 11511: 11361: 11320: 11158: 11066: 10948: 10790: 10465:

which has nothing to do with uranium enrichment, or even more 'surprising' things. See where

10126: 9537: 9492: 9474: 8638:

I have some tools to finetune hex color at home so I'll come back and work on it tonight. :)

7257: 5656: 5296: 5100:

Oh, ok, sorry I didn't pick up on that before. This sockpuppet chasing is new to me. Thanks.

4728: 4611: 4499: 4109: 3627: 3598: 3582: 2733: 1953: 1811: 1772: 804: 779: 718: 10974: 8354:

that other editors are now complaining about. So it might be a good idea to reopen the SPI.

5082:

moved from a previous account name so my notice may be embarrassing to someone in real life.

2544:

message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

2217:

Oops, I slapped a vandalism3 on this IP's talk but I see you've already blocked it. Thanks.

11597: 11423: 11415: 11289: 10209: 8871: 8695: 8649: 8609: 8586: 8537: 8511: 8305: 8134: 8022: 7026:

Indeffed and that talk page semi-protected for a month (IAR action) to curtail the socking.

7003: 6746: 6502: 6458: 6417: 6376: 6301: 6263: 5384: 5339: 5288: 4635: 4226: 4101: 4087: 3229: 2783:

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

2371: 2317: 2222: 2167: 2086: 1738: 1656: 1538: 1468: 1324: 495: 487: 425: 417: 363: 355: 116: 9887: 5694:

2A02:908:E620:A260::/64 blocked one month and protections added. Let's see how that works.

2725:

Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Knowledge, and have a happy and enjoyable

536:

appears to be an IP account from which they or a friend is editting. Removed the link per

348:

Hi, I just got this message from you i think ? Can you explain me pls what is all about ?

8: 11476: 10450: 9978: 9861: 9708: 9578: 9435: 8966: 8268: 8157: 8148: 7237: 7198: 7145: 6908: 5938: 4746: 4582: 4199: 4165: 3376: 3367: 1546: 1476: 1392: 1332: 1317: 1264: 541: 5841:

Earlier various IPs also starting with 176.219... were collaborating with Tirgil34 sock

110:

learn more about Knowledge. Thank you. — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

11622: 11543: 11494: 11442: 11337: 11263: 10397: 9952: 9787: 9738: 9688: 9623: 9595: 9456: 9367: 9349: 9286: 9210: 9131: 9086: 8919: 8825: 8797: 8758: 8668: 8623: 8556: 8495: 8428: 8375: 8360: 8340: 8322: 8246: 8239:

Is this something for which you could lend assistance or advice? Our sock case here is

8181: 8095: 8081: 8026: 7986: 7968: 7933: 7899: 7847: 7796: 7646: 7574: 7529: 7492: 7445: 7397: 7339: 7300: 7221: 7177: 7051: 7029: 7016: 6985: 6956: 6882: 6828: 6822: 6780: 6711: 6470: 6430: 6388: 6354: 6280: 6233: 6216: 6177: 6096: 6057: 6041: 5971: 5911: 5811: 5795: 5773: 5697: 5628: 5597: 5470: 5451: 5429: 5397: 5362: 5315: 5244: 5191:

Louis' edit summaries show a greater English fluency than Eleanor's few summaries have.

5159: 5085: 5040: 4996: 4927: 4854: 4704: 4701:

What happened to your signature? I see that you're dropping it frequently when signing.

4686: 4670: 4653: 4549: 4481: 4356: 4346: 4330: 4239: 4179: 4139: 4071: 4017: 3884: 3759: 3513: 3202: 2945: 2877: 2838: 2822: 2763: 2638: 2575: 2448: 2397: 2346: 2294: 2235: 2196: 2108: 2068: 1902: 1863: 1718: 1604: 1565: 1507: 1444: 1353: 1290: 1244: 1224: 1200: 1187: 1092: 1073: 1033: 986: 959: 942: 916: 824: 752: 663: 621: 578: 518: 456: 446: 394: 325: 202: 150: 8196:

Thanks. Following recent revelations, Tirgil34 has been targeting Wiktionary with his

6625:

What a joke guy. Former alleged sockmaster accuses me of being "bad". Deal with it. --

5672:. Tirgil34 has been IP socking with IP's starting with 2A02:908.. since at least 2013. 5152:

using the same range of IPs that edits in an entirely different area. Much of the /22

11279: 10466: 9394:: when you protect a template (or other transcluded page), please make sure that the 9238: 9185: 9114: 9077: