3082:
claim creative commons). The file itself has been flagged as unambiguous copyright infringement of the cnet file (which is identical other than the copyright info which appears on the cnet version). The image itself is obviously of little consequence since it can be easily removed etc, but to me this suggests that I'm-Back-1001 is another sock puppet (especially since both names end in 1001, and "I'm back" seems to be a reference to the user being banned, although it could easily be an innocent reference to the
Terminator movies or something). The problem is I have no idea how to go about reporting said suspicion (the page is rather confusing). Any advice would be great.
2177:
reasonalby prolonged parallel posting to produce a statistically significant result, and there are genuine circumstances where non-sock puppet / meat puppet users could generate a validly correlated result. A good example is if the two posters tend to work at similar times and are in a close edit or talk dialogue exchange and have cross WatchList monitoring. This can cause anomalous measures at low time deltas. I've seen this in some of the test cases that I've run. The TSVs can be directly imported into Excel or Calc, which is how I generate my plots, though it wouldn't take a lot more code to generate these directly with the right Perl libraries.
2081:. I don't want to talk about the specifics here, but do want to raise a discussion about the general principles which might apply quite independently of this particular case. I've been tracking SPIs for some months and the vast majority of such investigations are instigated against users who in general pretty naive about the analytic techniques that can be used to detect sock and meat puppets. A percentage of Wikipedians are relatively sophisticated in their knowledge of computing and such techniques. I know that I could easily defeat SP detection if I was sad enough to create such accounts. My questions arose from this potential situation.
219:
172:
6010:
user Jaspel has created two pages of sock puppet accusation in his contributions section because I dare to stand up to him and defy his editing practice some of which is in good faith but the rest seems to be deliberately provocative atleast towards me, I dont know him nor care for what he does but will stand upto him wheres he crosses the line, before you block me kindly check the antics of this chap as well. I know somewhere I fit in the sock puppet category but I never realised it was the case until now.
31:
1505:
5287:
947:. Instead, there would be one single template that determines the status of an SPI case, whether it be pending clerk approval, checkuser, close, open, etc. I've also coded the template so that it only works on the specific SPI case pages and not on archive pages. This would effectively deprecate the old "code letter" system as clerks and checkusers are clueful enough to be able to determine whether CU is needed without them.
2658:
545:
4407:
1701:
many edits to go on here, and I'll try and get a second opinion on this from another clerk, which may take a while. It should be noted that connecting usernames to IPs is something that should be done with great care, it is easy to accidentally edit when logged out, and upon doing so users are understandably (and perfectly legitimately) unwilling to admit to having a connection to the IP.
4707:
4592:
2359:
1886:
912:, and I think I have a good feel of how most of these intricate templates work. I have some suggestions to help improve and streamline SPI, some of which have been proposed a while back and had consensus but never acted upon. Most of these changes are designed to better utilize some better usage of the MediaWiki features and to be less-dependent on bots while maintaining sustainability.
4382:(16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC).
5325:"Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers", and "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public."
2128:
someone's obviously a sockpuppet because their edits did NOT overlap. Further, the "similar posting characteristics" are highly subjective in the absence of obvious things such as "always spells checkuser with a Q" or "always puts !!! in edit summaries". I, for one, will reject requests where analyses like these are the primary driver. --
6187:, etc. because of the lack of structure there. For example, right now, we're working to eliminate many of the sections in an effort to strike balance between regular, wiki-style, threaded discussion and "special sections" like the one reserved for CUs and closing administrators. We have had some previous discussion about this
2138:
when checkuser can be run and tightening the rules about when alternate accounts are acceptable than trying for automated detection. We've had some sad tales of admins that got too wrapped up in sophisticated sock-puppet detection procedures and ultimately got desysopped as a result. I'd rather not go down that path.—
4020:) are likely to have been created a number of years ago and will now be very rarely clicked. It is not an emergency, I would suggest, if these links are not instantaneously (or, even, ever) updated. The trickle of users finding the page by that route could be well enough served by a notice along the lines:
6204:
From a purely anecdotal perspective, Jehochman, I think we're handling cases quickly. There is only one case currently awaiting "official" checkusering, and it has already received some checkuser input. I know this is kind of getting away from your original post, but you should give SPI a shot again.
5975:
Removing the
Suspected heading is fine, but we need the section for admin/clerk/cu comments, as we have seen multiple cases where the discussion gets out of hand. I think that and evidence section is a little redundant as the "disucssion" is of the evidence. The evidence would be fine just sitting at
4971:
with two identified socks (including of infamous User:Karmaisking) and a bunch of editors whose POV's are almost identical but they scream bloody murder if you mention the sock (or meat) problem infecting discourse in the whole article. A tag would help those of us dealing with it feel a tad bit less
2180:
So under normal circumstances, it is at best supporting evidence. Of course, it might just throw up truly bizarre inter-relationships which should be questioned further. Can I suggest that if any of you are interested then take a local copy and have a play. I've given it a free-use licence so help
2014:
IMO I don't think more CheckUsers are going to help any (though ArbCom obviously disagrees with me on that). The thing is that most CUs are college students, and this is a busy time of the semester. It is very likely that you will see CheckUser activity pick up again within 3-4 weeks when school gets
1792:
how to add that request into the current system. I did read the section on the current project page stating: "Note that these buttons may be used either for creating a new case or reopening an old one." but when I tried, it results in an entirely new page, with preloaded blank fields. A little help?--
1791:
I'm finding it as clear as mud how to reconcile the current instructions with the instructions that were in the above page from the older system. Specifically, having followed the instructions at the above page for reopening, which were to post a new request above a template on the page, I cannot see
1700:
Yep, there was me thinking it'd be something nice and uncontroversial. I've reviewed this closely, and I personally don't think there is another evidence of a link between the named account and the IP to justify a checkuser, and I would (personally) decline it should it be submitted. There's not very
594:
How about a change in procedure for sockpuppet investigations? A user is indicated to be under investigation with the sockpuppet investigation report and on its user Talk page, but not in the same locations when cleared of such charges. I had to request such information before it was placed in the
6009:
I have a registered account as
Inspector123 but mostly edit unlogged through my IP which is shared in my country, the address numbers vary from 115 through to 203, I have never tried to pose as different usrs nor intended to decieve anyone with this, just lazy to log-in all the time, now a psychotic
5385:
this will help a checkuser establish that this is not you. From what I see from what your telling me, in my opinion the most you could be tagged is possible, and that is only technical evidence. We also determine on behavoiral evidence. Your behavoiral evidence would square you off as not the vandal
4737:
Hmmm.... the bot seems to be properly adding and subtracting from the subpages. But the changes aren't showing up on the main SPI page. How are the subpages supposed to be transcluded in the main page? Or is the bot supposed to be updating both? Or what? Too late for me to think about it... time for
4568:
only goes up to 20, which is because, well, it is the exceptional case where someone creates 20+ socks that needs to be reported (instead of turning up in a check, which is still quite unusual, but sadly not as rare), and the larger the limit is, the harder it is to maintain that template. W/r/t the
4041:
Looking at the actual "what links here" data, I just went through about 2000 links (500 at a time, quick glance) and I can't find a single incoming link which is NOT a talk page archive of some sort. So yeah, let me recind what I said before. I think changing the redirect and the hatnotes would be a
2095:
Now (1) are (2) are difficult Qs, but I have used a technique in the past in my then day job which I felt might be a (partial) answer to (3), and that is to construct a statistical analysis of post timing, and use this to test the question: are the posts for any two given users truly independent? I
695:
I was recently involved as a witness in an SPI which was categorised as a possible but closed because of inconclusive CU evidence. I wanted to table and discuss an alternative analysis that I have used in the past which shows conclusive evidence. I wasn't aware of the above at the time, but simple
610:
Normally, non-action implies a good thing (this is in general and not just your recent involvement). If you weren't warned or blocked as a sock and the SPI has been handled and closed, then you can likely assume that you're not a sock and that you are free to go along with your business. To me, it's
6226:
If all the facts needed are already laid out some place, it is better to bring the
Checkuser to the facts. If the facts are scattered we can collect them at SPI. The current process was horrifically complicated last time I looked, and I'm not going to look at it again until it gets cleaned up and
3081:
uploaded the same file (60GB Black PS3.gif) to wikimedia commons and replaced the free one with it. This time it was claimed that the licence was creative commons as found on a flickr page (by a user called A-2291-A who incidentally only has that one file uploaded, uploaded it today and does indeed
2000:
Was just about to post a similar comment on the need for more CU. I know the elections are ongoing, but I've definitely noticed longer than expected delays. The last two quick CU posts which I have been involved in have been a day or more before I ended up closing them out myself (in today's case
703:
to discuss the detection algo and its underlying rationale / statistical basis but preferably with one of your tool developers, and / or analyst with a basic ground in statistical analysis of such data sets, rather than a user of the tool. As this approach would detect a class of puppet behaviours
6240:
In any case, what do you think is the best way forward on implementing this? I have the SPI sandbox (where the bot updates case listings) on my watchlist and I'm alerted when a new case is filed. Personally, I find categories harder to monitor, but that may just be me. Also, one of the benefits of
5889:
I'd like to propose eliminating those five sections and just have the one "date" section that would have the list of suspected socks and then regular, wiki-style, threaded discussion below. I think this will make SPI more palatable and easier on all fronts (as opposed to just one side), and it's a
4538:
The particular person that I am wanting to report has, to my knowledge, over 40 accounts, all of which are anonymous IPs, and I would like to know why it only goes up to sock20 and ip20. Also, is that message saying that if there are over nine socks and IPs, then the checkuser and checkip template
4316:
I just told another couple of admins, who battle socks, about my inability to remember some of the cases I've filed. Usually they come back to me but it can take a while. I had to build a section on my userpage to track them now. Fortunately, this one is really fresh and the anon IP made the exact
2137:
Such tools are an interesting input to the sockpuppet detection process, but can't be relied upon. As
Jpgordon points out, the results can always be interpreted to match the intended result. We have a horrible problem with sockpuppeting, but there would be more benefit to loosening the rules about
1710:
For what it's worth I am happy to simply deny any connection between the IP (that WHOIS identifies as being in Tokyo), the editor or editors behind that IP, and me. I'm also happy to take up this entire subject at a more appropriate place, be it someone's Talk page or SSI page devoted to me. The
3986:
fix the redirect. Ignoring talk page archives, if one wanted to do this one should go through and update all incoming links to WP:RFCU to redirect to WP:SPI as that is where it is currently intended to go. But one should do that as soon as the redirect is changed. Changing the redirect without
2152:
If we are to rely on this, it would need much more extensive testing than a single case. Run it on our (lots) of serial sockpuppeteers and their confirmed socks along with control cases of unrelated users, throw in some unrelated socks for good measure. I'm open to using it as supportive (but not
2127:
The problem is that even though the tools might be mathematically and statistically meaningful, this does not mean that they are behaviorally correct. I've seen analyses of exactly this sort used to say someone's obviously a sockpuppet because their edits overlapped; and I've seen analyses saying
1945:
It is my perception (and maybe I'm wrong) that I've been the one doing most of the checkuser work here this week, and I've been avoiding it since I don't know much about serial sockpuppeteers, so that might be where the problem is. For what it's worth, checkuser requests going unanswered for four
3682:
Seems there's a small backlog for CheckUser requests. Maybe this is fairly normal since I don't generally scrutinize this area, but on the occasions which have drawn my interest, the turnaround seems to have been hours or maybe 2 days, at most. Is there a broken tool or a shortage of
Checkuser
3546:
Seems there's a small backlog for CheckUser requests. Maybe this is fairly normal since I don't generally scrutinize this area, but on the occasions which have drawn my interest, the turnaround seems to have been hours or maybe 2 days, at most. Is there a broken tool or a shortage of
Checkuser
2100:
to explain this approach. I had a couple of suspect sockpuppets in this "sophisticated user" category, so I tried this test against these and also comparing the users to a number of "control accounts" -- that is other users with similar posting characteristics and for whom I had good supporting
1209:
to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the
Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to
5338:
I think
Hersfold is talking about my request. Really it was my mistake as it was my first request here and there is no problem to connect IPs with users in Ruwiki where I had edited before. But I still don't understand how to stop a blocked user from editing anonymously without defining his IP?
3720:
There's been a shortage of checkusers for some time now, but the community decided that we didn't need more for whatever reason. As a result, this happens from time to time. It should be cleared out soon, as the checkusers on this project are some of the hardest working (thankless) people here.
3584:
There's been a shortage of checkusers for some time now, but the community decided that we didn't need more for whatever reason. As a result, this happens from time to time. It should be cleared out soon, as the checkusers on this project are some of the hardest working (thankless) people here.
2915:
as a suspected sock. The next day, a CheckUser was carried out on the 1st of June report and it didn't detect
Weakopedia as a sock. I apologise if this has already been brought up but I think an admin needs to have a say on that second report as it seems to be clear that Weakopedia is unrelated
6170:
as separate noticeboards than to combine them into one. I think one of the problems when SPI first started in early 2009 was that it was intentionally made too complicated so that it could be completely bot-automated. That started to fall apart when our old bot stopped working, and the old bot
2176:
Correct. It's not a checkuser tool in that in its current form, it limits itself to using publicly accessible timestamp data. All it really asks is the Q: are these two users posts time uncorrelated, and rejection of this hypothesis at low alpha implies that they actually are. It requires a
971:
function to move SPI cases and preserving edit history while at the same time keep the heading intact. This would also allow standard redirection of cases if need be. Additional features include simplified date headings (ideal for archive pages) and the elimination of the L6 headings that are
1439:
Why do some cases have a "Conclusions" section and others not? I would prefer if we did away with the conclusions section, as it seems somewhat redundant to the "CU/admin/clerk comments" section, and the distinction between the two sections is not clear. Comments on this change can go in the
6192:
5417:
is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three
1667:, with few edits, no history of user page deletion or talk page deletion, surprises with the comment "Why no listening to advice about making pointless changes against consensus?", which leads to suspicion that 219.207.18.236 is somehow involved in other edits because of 1. and 3.
4515:
I have never submitted a sockpuppet complaint before, and I plan to submit my first one very soon. Therefore, I naturally have curiosities about going through with sockpuppet complaints. When going to the page where sockpuppets are submitted, there is a passage which states:
6134:
I would note that the SPI cases that normally take the longest are those which do not require CU; i.e. those which need uninvolved administrators to close. Moreover, if CU results fail to clearly indicate or non-indicate socking, then there is still a possibility of waiting.
5432:
this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.
6148:
for checkuser in my days at Knowledge. Trust me, the standard process usually takes much longer than I'd like when I'm trying to control some sort of sock-involved disruption. You've got the CU bit so you don't experience these delays. I don't even bother with the new
3964:
But shouldn't the far more likely case (that someone has typed in the initials of a project page they have heard of) be prioritised of the far less likely case (that someone has either just been thawed out of an ice-block or has clicked on a piped link on a dormant talk
1167:(submitting the form). It might be reasonable to have Twinkle submit cases by substing a wiki template, or by copying and then modifying the raw source of a pseudo-template page -- saves us the headache of modifying that code every time we want to change formatting. –
4260:. For future reference, you can simply follow the instructions for opening a new case to re-open a old one - the templates will automatically point to the archive of old findings. Once you've added your evidence to this case, be sure to post it to the main SPI page.
1472:
I concur with Peter on this. I don't see why we can't just use the "Checkuser, admin and clerk comments" instead of the conclusions section. I'm pretty sure that it's just the twinkle submitted cases that contain the "conclusions" section. Also, the twinkle cases
4190:
Thanks! (And apologies for missing your reply until now) I'll definitely take you up on that - possibly not immediately, but certainly when I've got some spare time. Actually, scratch that - never hurts to have some bedtime reading. Help pages welcomed, here or
696:
common sense says that such analysis or data should not be disclosed publicly, so I Wiki-emailed the checkuser-admin involved in the case, but this is a bit of a black hole in that you have no feedback on whether this is the appropriate target address or not.
1908:
We have an open SPI case on scibaby that has lingered for 4 days (after being endorced)- and which is just growing larger and larger. Some of these have been blocked - but most have not. If there are any false positives amongst them - then it is problematic.
4148:
Since I'm not an SPI person my knowledge is very limited, and my post could well contain inaccuracies. I'm advertising it here for two reasons: (a) so that any bad advice I've given this editor can be fixed, and (b) you can, if necessary, teach me stuff ;-)
5922:
I agree with DeltaQuad here. I look at a lot of historical cases, and I always know where to look for the resolution (which is generally the first thing I want.) If it's buried somewhere in a threaded conversation, analysis becomes somewhat more annoying.
4569:
IPs you mention, you might want to report only recently used IPs, as old IPs (e.g., more than a few months old) generally have little value; if all are recent, after reporting 20 of the IPs, you can manually add the rest by editing the generated report.
2888:
I'm not an admin or a clerk or a CU, I'm just an ordinary editor but as I saw this (per my below thread), I think I should say what I know. I'm sure that only admins can decline speedy deletions, I'm not too sure but if I were you, I'd report to verify.
4839:
If you have a robot that finds SPI cases for you and adds them if they're bluelinked, why has an SPI for Marskell ended up in "Awaiting clerk approval" if it is redlinked? I'd remove it myself but I don't want to interfere with the robot. Kind regards,
1811:. Should you want to open a case on the user in future just use the input boxes on the main SPI page, and replace "SOCKMASTER" with "Crashingthewaves", don't worry about old RFCU cases existing. Hope this is all okay and makes sense. Kind regards,
805:
We don't always deal with cases in a chronological order. Other factors, such as how serious the alleged sockpuppetry is can have an affect on how quickly cases are dealt with. However, we do typically try and deal with older cases first. Regards,
622:
I agree that a user should be notified on their talk page that they've been found innocent. It's not a huge effort to do that and seems to me to be professional and courteous thing to do, so IMO notifying them should be done as a matter of course.
5960:
We need to have a separate section for clerk/admin/CU comments; removing the first heading and combining the 3rd and 4th section is fine, IMO. So we would have a section for evidence, a section for discussion, and a section for clerk/admin/CU.
6121:. Once the facts are put on view to the community, it is often helpful to get a Checkuser's attention and have them resolve any concerns about socking. It is inconvenient to suspend discussion, reformat and post all the relevant details to
4819:
I think so; it is one template that should cover all options (blocked, checked, etc.) but it requires a bot to remap the existing templates, because of the use of non-named parameters in the old templates, there were incompatibilities. --
3698:
It happens from time to time. The checkuser tool is only entrusted to a very limited number of users, so there are times when requests will sit for a while. However, the checkusers are pretty good about not letting things go for too long.
3562:
It happens from time to time. The checkuser tool is only entrusted to a very limited number of users, so there are times when requests will sit for a while. However, the checkusers are pretty good about not letting things go for too long.
4996:
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I figured regulars here would be most likely to know, so here goes... is there a tool (script, whatever) to compare two editors for overlapping edits (or the absence thereof)? Something like
6241:
having the cases listed centrally is the archives. It's easier to track cases through one archive instead of moving from an ANI archive to a BLPN archive, etc. Do you think there is a way we could archive cases from disparate sources?
5470:
5429:
3991:
changing the incoming links would be a bad idea. So in short, if anyone wants to take the time to do the tedious work of fixing the redirect, IMHO, they can have at it. But its a lot more work than just changing the shortcut page.
2260:
The subject says it all. How do we fix the archives? I was also going to mention that I used the form and the case didn't get added to the queue, but now I notice the message saying that the ClerkBot is down, so that's probably that.
4448:. The cases requiring checkuser are missing from the SPI page, and instead there is simply a link to the relevant subpage. We need to cut down on transclusions so that all the cases are actually displayed on the page. Suggestions? --
1861:
5361:
due to vandalism, but I get caught in the crossfire due to sharing the IP as I access Wiki from work. If an SPI was run on one of the previous editors that prompted the block would my username also get flagged? Just wondering.
2830:
3790:
It seems like the CU tool is given a very high status (and correspondingly few users), although I've never understood why that was necessary. Seems the tool can certainly be toned down to allow a version which reports only that
3654:
It seems like the CU tool is given a very high status (and correspondingly few users), although I've never understood why that was necessary. Seems the tool can certainly be toned down to allow a version which reports only that
1394:
requesting checkuser investigation. Either way, you can submit a report if you're pretty sure somebody is up to no good. As far as whether or not to ask for checkuser help, my general advice would be that it can't hurt to ask. –
1059:"?), is that useful for clerks and/or closing admins? My impression is more or less yes, but I figure that's more for your benefit than mine, so if you guys don't like it we might as well axe it. No time like the present to ask.
6178:
That being said, we've been trying to get away from the level of over-complication that we started off with and is trying to work towards something that is more readily accessible. I do share your concern that people do go to
3387:
Looks great, but could use a "checkuser has declined check" option for the rare circumstances where a clerk accepts but a checkuser declines. Other than that (which was also missing from the old one, actually) excellent work!
940:
729:
I don't know the details behind the case itself, but it looks like you did the right thing in emailing a CheckUser about the matter, especially if there was stuff that probably should not have been posted publicly on-wiki.
6227:
reaches a proper final state. I'm glad there's no backlog; perhaps that's because everybody has been so turned off by the perceived complexity of the process. We used to have something that works, and we broke it, badly.
5900:
I think 1st for sock list, 2nd for discussion, 3rd for Clerk, Admin, CU comments. That allows for admins, clerks and CUs to make some comments without being entangled in the rest, and it would be a clear sock list too. --
4481:
Agreed. We maybe should have them merge all onto WP:SPI/Header or something like, and then transclude that one. Also could try NW's idea too. Deskana, you probally already know this, but until we fix this you can check at
6188:
493:), as these two users seem just too similar to each other, and if you search for User:Until it sleeps you are redirected to The thing that should not be's user page. I would like a checkuser to look at this. Best wishes.
111:
the correct place to file a report for anonymous individuals using multiple IP addresses that have no known registered user name? If so, do I simply use the first known IP address for "SOCKMASTER" when opening a case? --
5422:
4166:(a) Your advice was excellent. You did a nice job breaking down such a complex issue into a few short paragraphs. (b) If you ever need any advice, do feel free to ask. If you want, I can point you to a few help pages.
2181:
yourselves. It's just that I've had an ANI raised against me for doing this SPI, and the way things are going I think that I am going to be banned for initiating it, so my user pages might just get deleted soon. --
1573:
If you list the suspected sockpuppets and the suspected sockpuppeteer here then I'll be happy to take a look at it and create an SPI page on your behalf if appropriate, to which you can then add the evidence section.
944:
2387:
787:. Is it due to the older ones being updated quite often that they cannot be resolved at a fast speed? I'm just wondering about the situation as the ALO SPI has been open for a few days now. Many thanks. Regards,
6236:
Well, I'm not saying your proposal isn't without merit - I just wanted to point out that, from my perspective, cases move pretty quickly. I should point out though, my only experience here has been with the new
2849:
2378:
1119:
No objections here, I even quite like it. Although it'd be good if someone could write an update for twinkle, or just remove the currect function to submit an SPI via twinkle until such a time as it is updated.
3799:" without any need to expose any "personal" information. The more thorough CheckUser could be employed when a user disputes when a "Editor accounts Match" notice is given by the stripped down tool. Ah well.
3663:" without any need to expose any "personal" information. The more thorough CheckUser could be employed when a user disputes when a "Editor accounts Match" notice is given by the stripped down tool. Ah well.
1725:
Actually, I think the archives would be more appropriate. I fail to see a sufficient connection between JohnInDC and the IP, no SPI page is warranted, let alone a check. I have also discussed this briefly with
1130:
4528:
For the list of suspected sockpuppets, you may use up to sock20 and ip20. If there are more than 9 socks or IPs, list them after creating the report by duplicating the {{checkuser}} and {{checkip}} templates.
1859:
I could use some help from a clerk, or anyone very knowledgable of SPI operations.There are two SPI investigations that Ive come accross that i think should be merged (both deal with the same editing trends);
1236:
1924:
Hopefully this will change after the new checkuser/oversight elections, as the entire process seems to be hurting. Perhaps you could try asking individual checkusers if they could watchlist that case page?
5949:
How about this: let's remove the "Suspected sockpuppets" heading (it currently serves no purpose) and then combine the last three sections into an "Other comments" section or whatever we want to name it.
2401:
954:
5001:, but, I suppose, more detail? I've seen folk discuss the lack of overlapping edits in relation to possible sock puppeting, and I'm hoping that they didn't manually compare two editors' contributions...
4343:
Is the template right under the "Submitting an SPI case" necessary anymore? I was going to remove it, but I don't know if doing, I would conflict with the bot and it would not update correctly anymore.
2859:
New logged–in user X creates an article that is nominated for speedy. Logged–in user B who made 2 edits in 2008 and nothing since declines the speedy. Is this enough evidence to report the situation? —
649:
I know we can't force a checkuser to process a report, but Brexx is getting pretty stale. We need to either process the ducks and move on, or get a checkuser to run the report. I put my recommendation
1380:
1487:
Not sure what opinion is on that, but personally I think it'd be good to standardize the twinkle versions to the cases as they appear when manually submitted (i.e. using the inputbox), or vice versa,
4912:. Or maybe something easier to remember, or simpler. This category would have use to sock hunters like myself, for well.. tracking which articles are edited by socks. High-profile and all that.—
2210:
2104:
I would welcome comment and review. Have a look at the paper or refer it to colleagues who might be interested. I've included the main Perl script, so if you have Perl on your PC and the current
1211:
3882:
2600:
4046:
the change of redirect target to WP:RFC/U as the more likely search term. 6 months ago, when the change was still fresh, it may have not been a good idea. But today, the fix seems reasonable. --
2101:
evidence that they weren't sock-puppets (e.g. they edited from different time-zones). The test seems to be effective in that it clearly rejected the controls but not the putative sock-puppets.
4909:
4432:
3868:
2529:
3896:
5377:
It could get flagged at your IP, but if your editing from work too, that would help unestablish you. Checkuser data is held on the server for three months. But also if your using a different
4925:
2463:
3511:
for cases that are not awaiting a clerk or checkuser. This way we can easily see all cases at once, and also easily find all cases that should go into the "Not awaiting checkuser" section.
5558:
1278:
I'm asking since I'm getting bug reports that Twinkle isn't properly listing reports. If the bot isn't expected to return to work soon I guess I should make Twinkle to list the cases again.
983:
909:
4552:
4281:
Thanks for the assist. These SPI cases always baffle me. Thank God, they have become simpler to file. I looked for the instructions on how to re-open a case but must have missed it. ----
4893:
2614:
2596:
2444:
4558:
It used to be sock9 and ip9...before someone changed it to 20, and the comment was only corrected in half...I just got someone to fix that. The reason it only goes up to 20 is because
4425:
4042:
GOOD idea. This page has been under the current organization for long enough that many users aren't going to remember/be aware of the old name. I'd like to hear others chime in, but i
1332:
Looks like the case has now been dealt with. For future reference, you had put it into the correct queue, but newer cases go at the top (just because we like to be confusing). Regards
5954:
5894:
4375:
1801:
1940:
1426:
1408:
2276:
4510:
2423:
1342:
1315:
I've listed this in the right place, but I've never quite got my head around the new setup since RFCU became SPI. If I've listed it wrong, can someone do the necessary? Thanks! –
5082:
2929:
2313:
2228:
1946:
days used to be no strange thing, as there used to be a lot less checkusers. So at least there's that. But saying checkuser has "broken down" is a little bit dramatic, no? :) --
723:
3987:
fixing the incoming links would be disruptive. I would say that if anyone is so inclined, they could do it. Such a move would be logical. But changing the shortcut redirect
2610:
2882:
1326:
5856:
5807:
5128:
5103:
4962:
4944:
4369:
3862:
3504:
2250:
1016:. Otherwise, submitting an SPI case ideally shouldn't be any more difficult than it is to nominate an article for AFD for instance. Any discussion of the above is welcome. –
3335:
2898:
1918:
5996:
5941:
4578:
1820:
Thanks Spitfire! I do think it might be a good idea to update the notices on old RFCU templates to list that it's defunct, and give an explanation of what to do instead.--
329:
Sorry... I must be having a delayed Monday. I didn't twigg that the SOCKMASTER it wants changed is the one just above the button to auto create the editing page. (sigh) -
5970:
5570:
5216:
5016:
It can be useful to do a quick run with Wikistalk, and then check a few articles manually to find individual diffs. I think that is probably the best way to go about it.
1300:
827:
810:
604:
5045:
4981:
4780:
4502:
1844:
1829:
1815:
1443:
379:
5159:
4126:
Endorsed for checkuser. Sorry, we've had a bit of a backlog around here, partly as some people have been on or are on holiday, or just taking a break. Kindest regards,
3416:, and AzaToth is willing to adjust Twinkle settings (both of which would take some time), and we get a new SPI bot online, we wouldn't be rolling this out right away. –
2950:
1466:
1180:
1048:" for a checkuser request, as the "CU" seems to stick out from the rest. This might be a silly thing to quibble over, though (especially since we can add more aliases).
442:
5848:
4813:
4476:
4394:
4379:
3296:
3028:
2673:
2649:
1953:
1877:
1705:
1695:
1578:
668:
5402:
4885:
4871:
4130:
2544:
1547:
1491:
6288:
6039:
5031:
4855:
Apparently the case is verboten and has been completely wiped from the history. I've removed the case from the bot's subpage to prevent a redlink from transcluding.
4204:
4181:
3715:
2582:
2407:
2121:
1897:
1146:
1124:
1114:
764:
525:
254:
6257:
6231:
6129:
6104:
5273:
4672:
4326:
4311:
4290:
4276:
2438:
2370:
1336:
1229:
394:
361:
338:
324:
6283:
6221:
6199:
6157:
6139:
5927:
5917:
5779:
5462:
4682:
3780:
3579:
2550:
1995:
1364:
1096:
or such? I hardly ever looked at the front page, before, so it was a hassle to follow that one section on it. This might be less pressing with CategoryTree in use.
207:
6205:
With four new checkusers (two of whom patrolled SPI before becoming checkusers) and several new clerks, things move along at a pretty good clip.</offtopic: -->
5332:
4731:
4075:
4061:
4036:
4007:
3977:
3959:
3940:
3745:
3533:
3520:
3448:
2171:
1734:
1720:
552:
454:
158:
140:
5010:
4651:
4455:
3766:
3644:
3404:
3395:
2568:
1020:
859:
841:
823:
795:
5543:
5371:
4626:
4461:
The header could probably be put right on this page, and I believe a number of things are transcluded on to the header that could just be on the header itself.
4363:
3609:
3132:
2190:
2132:
1772:
895:
870:
852:
734:
5748:
5677:
5344:
5227:
There must be a problem - the omnipresent backlog tag has disappeared from the main page. I demand the people responsible for this step forward so they can be
4766:
3630:
3203:
3188:
3172:
2331:
2204:
2078:
1865:
1784:
1011:
That's what I've come up with so far. As far as simplifying the submission of cases is concerned, that is still a difficult task due to the limitations of the
615:
5358:
I've just had a thought - where are people like me likely to stand with regards to SPI investigations? My IP has already been (quite justified) blocked twice
3235:
584:
6145:
5765:), which nobody has dealt with for two weeks. Every day more cases open, some get resolved, and this is left as the oldest one with no improvement at all. -
5498:
5348:
5036:
I copy all edits to Excel, color code by user name and sort by date/time. Overlapping edits and switching between accounts can be pretty obvious this way. -
4694:
3808:
3692:
2904:
2469:
2162:
2147:
2009:
1630:
5359:
4747:
3429:
of an active SPI page, so folks can see once they click on an SPI case. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to where to place this, or is this fine? –
3311:
but doesn't seem to be flagged on the main page. Not sure if i did something wrong or some automated system is slow. If something needs fixing, let me know.
3159:
2824:
1360:
5830:
5313:
5190:
5053:
3672:
3556:
2578:
2112:
I have also some thoughts about (2) but I am not sure if this is the correct place to raise them; if not then please point me to the appropriate page. --
2032:
2019:
1808:
1567:
775:
Hey, I have noticed that the list of SPIs awaiting clerk review and user reported cases is full. I have also noticed that the latest SPI I have submitted,
638:
589:
674:
3831:
3493:
3433:
3420:
3381:
2803:
2479:
2233:
1306:
94:
86:
6153:
process because it's too slow and bureaucratic. I either give up, or try to flag a friendly checkuser. That's not a good way to administer this site.
5319:
Hm...while that is true 90% of the time, it is not always the case. There are certian extreme exceptions to this rule, so I am not sure that stating we
3103:
2755:
2638:
2414:
This doesn't seem to be transcribing onto the main page. I've never done a sockpuppet thing before so I'm not sure if I've done something wrong or not!
2067:
799:
5524:
5414:
4218:
3308:
2606:
2564:
746:
476:
81:
69:
64:
59:
6019:
5294:
4120:
5340:
3320:
2839:
2408:
1838:
and other related pages pointing users to SPI instead. If you have any suggestions on how to better do this, I would be open to making the changes.
5787:
5780:
4908:, which would add a parameter for banned users. If the second parameter is supplied with 'banned', it would add the article to a category such as
4353:
2255:
2059:. If it hasn't been suggested already, it may make sense for all CU's to get access to the ACC site to allow them to clear up the backlog there.
1003:. This would also speed up loading time on the SPI page as it saves having to transclude everything, and I think with the more widespread usage of
303:
6299:
4250:
4160:
1262:) has been down since last December. Does anyone have an estimate when or if it's going to be up again, or is going to be replaced? I notice that
5670:
5327:
4761:
4611:
3954:
2854:
1839:
1712:
1625:
784:
780:
296:
5663:
5588:) blocked the editor and a couple of socks. We're wondering if this sounds familiar: an obsession with eye- and hair-colour, and zodiac-signs? (
5531:
4699:
1529:
886:. The directions on the main SPI page do not seem to cover the situation of renewed activity after a case is no longer listed on the main page.
5885:
does not work with complicated SPI cases; e.g. accused editors will eventually edit in the "evidence" and "other users" sections, for instance.
5703:
3758:
3622:
3476:
3246:
3165:
3142:
3110:
2283:
2072:
1785:
1420:
1374:
776:
707:
Because I have used it on a specific case data, I am reluctant to discuss this openly as well, but the conclusions here are pretty irrefutable.
414:
4829:
4792:
3368:
as well as formally deprecate the old "code letter" system (i.e. users will no longer need to input a "code letter" for a CheckUser request):
3277:
1390:
investigation (sometimes a case is obvious, or checkuser wouldn't help much); "Awaiting checkuser processing", on the other hand, implies you
1285:
754:
6082:
5535:
5059:
4618:
4345:
4141:
As an editor who to date has only created work at WP:SPI, and as an admin who hopes they might be more helpful in the future, I've just made
3525:
It's useful to have all the open cases listed in one category, as it makes it easier to check whether or not all the cases are listed on the
3258:
2620:
1348:
567:
502:
232:
4849:
2795:
4599:
3149:. Am I missing some step? The past few I've done have behaved like this, but it was the same sock master in those cases and I assumed some
421:
185:
5296:
5247:
3471:, which it disappears (i.e. category is suppressed) after the case is archived; this means cases are normally double-categorized, such as
2351:
651:
5774:
5762:
5627:
4991:
3040:
2964:
2905:
2238:
1854:
1448:
Seems redundant, and not serving the purpose as originally predicted. Would support a tighter template without these redundant sections.
3921:
2971:
121:
4257:
3508:
3348:
I have tested and completed a new SPI template (in the works for quite a while), which is intended to replace and combine the existing
3215:
2109:
1748:
I support Spitfire and would also decline a request for checkuser in this instance, as there are significant behavioral differences. --
1423:
1377:
384:
I have edited the instructions; I didn't get it at first either, when I went to file a case. Hopefully now it is clearer what to do. --
4106:
5643:
5611:
5549:
4439:
3819:
3216:
2835:
2272:
1192:
835:
6171:
operator was no longer available to fix it. Ideally, it should not be anymore difficult to start an SPI case than it is to start an
3846:
has listed the case for you. To list it on the main page just list {{SPI|Lcree}} (or whichever casename) in the appropriate column.
3877:
3869:
2517:
1000:
903:
47:
17:
5697:
4715:
2998:
1434:
663:
2746:) as the primary name. Since Benjiboi was shown to be uninvolved, should the case be renamed or should I just start a new case?
957:
is about a rough idea about how a case would be organized. The big thing is that there would be no template substitution on the
4876:
Ah, OK then. Thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to think that the bot was going to delete Knowledge :P. Kind regards.
4719:
2388:
Knowledge:Village pump (development)#Limiting sockpuppet creation by requiring a verified email address during account creation
1903:
572:
470:
448:
5298:
4142:
3968:
In other words, I think we have the redirect and the redirect notice the wrong way round, from the point of view of a user. --
3069:
was banned as a sock puppet on the 1st of June. Just before being banned, they uploaded a non-free image of a PS3 taken from
2097:
490:
2490:
01:44, 24 May 2010 Sweet 'n' Sour Love Magic Guy (talk | contribs) created new account User:Easy Rider Guy (talk | contribs)
5836:
5408:
5353:
4228:
4099:
3677:
3034:
2286:
in early March. It was nice to have a full archive list, but without the bot it was difficult and tedious to maintain. ~
3226:. I think it's time for someone to either reverse my block or deny the unblock, as this has been dragging on for a while.—
3223:
2645:
The latter is nail-on, but I'm not sure what's going on with the Goofytrevor accounts. I'm more inclined to AGF and see. –
6011:
5109:
5063:
4116:
A little surprised that a SPI I raised 6 days ago hasn't even been looked at by a clerk yet. Is everything OK over here?
4023:
3289:, I presume mostly because the Clerk bot has been down for quite some time, so there aren't any more archives to link to.
2665:
2630:
2588:
2521:
2506:
1687:
1559:
1497:
863:
5790:
using Twinkle, but it gave some error, and may not have listed it or something. Can someone please investigate? Thanks,
5300:) to the various instruction pages. If something seems to be broken, it may be my fault; feel free to revert if needed.
1664:
690:
So my first request is could you please modify this instruction to explain what PM address to use in the first instance.
5279:
3541:
2911:
I thought I should bring this up here. I noticed that on the 3rd of June, a second report was filed on Scibaby listing
2535:
Pretty consistent with the other recent socks including creating one account and creating more using that one account.
2305:
1417:
1371:
1259:
238:
191:
5293:. Checkuser does not connect users to specific IP addresses." on new CU requests, so I've gone and made some changes (
4022:
WP:RFCU redirects here. If you are looking for the historical "Requests for checkuser" page, please see its successor
5976:
the top of the discussion section. But if you guys think we need it, I would make it a subheading of the discussion.
3457:
Right now, I have the new template set up so that all the categorization is done from this template alone. Currently
2711:
2697:
2574:
466:
4397:(same link as above). As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the
3077:
article. It was quickly replaced with a free image and the file deleted. Today (8th June), another user by the name
685:. However, what it doesn't explain what email / PM address to use and what the acknowledge mechanism / process is.
5175:
4236:
3928:
3341:
2992:
1835:
999:) which effectively eliminates clerks or other users to "move" cases around as witnessed in the SPI page's history
6027:
1637:
1101:
Unless somebody points out some glaring problem, though, I'd like to think we can switch to this soonish, yeah? –
6252:
6216:
6099:
6057:
5733:
5727:
5621:
5242:
5154:
4866:
4306:
4271:
3880:
has recently been nominated for deletion by another user. Your input is welcome, and the discussion can be found
3857:
3710:
3574:
3046:
1914:
6071:
is a useful tool for gathering info in one place. In other cases the info is already located in one place, and
5477:
3479:
for those in which CheckUser is requested. Do we want to keep this method of categorization, or should we ditch
1541:
when Twinkle was set up to work with the new and improved SPI system. Didn't do the cosmetic changes as of yet.
5721:
5709:
5651:
5503:
4902:
4690:
3757:- never mind the CU. Be patient and persistent is all I can say. It will be processed, one way or another...
3621:- never mind the CU. Be patient and persistent is all I can say. It will be processed, one way or another...
3058:
2976:
2743:
1558:
I propose page creation ability for ips. I have a suspected sockpuppet incident and I can't initiate a report!
1535:
Ah, yes, I threw out the Conclusions from Twinkle when I noticed this discussion. The two simply diverged, the
1276:) hasn't been active since since last November even, due to health issues. Has anyone been in contact with him?
1273:
5179:
2838:
needs to be placed under one of these categories per what the clerk thinks of this evidence. Thanks :). Best,
712:
So my second request is if a PM to a checkuser-admin is not the correct approach, then who should I approach.
5715:
5637:
5605:
5489:
into a separate page, and the other on retiring the "meatpuppetry" term. Interesting how no one notified us.
3377:
I've quickly written some documentation about how it would be used. Comments/concerns are welcome as usual. –
3153:-type explanation. This case is a new sock master, so now I'm convinced it's me what done broke something...
2751:
2268:
1649:
1643:
1553:
1414:
1368:
5421:
In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a
4338:
4136:
3827:
3052:
2725:
427:
If you could list it yourself, it would be a great help. But if not, a clerk should be on it soon. Cheers,
5865:
separate editable sections (not counting the main sockmaster's header and the date header) for SPI cases:
4295:
Not a problem. There's a lot to sort through for these cases. If you get stuck at any point, let me know.
3016:
704:
that are design to counter the tradition analytic approaches that I guess your current CU analytics adopt.
226:
Here's hoping you like it: a troll sockpuppet fishing and catching a very surprised worm puppet. Cheers,
179:
Here's hoping you like it: a troll sockpuppet fishing and catching a very surprised worm puppet. Cheers,
5989:
5912:
5691:
5580:
I came across an "interesting" editor yesterday, and thought that their editing rang a few bells. Today,
5397:
5268:
5211:
5178:- or the other way round. Is there any way you can check - so the abuse stops? The allegations are here:
5169:
4667:
4646:
4497:
3004:
2556:
4584:
3982:
Once again, the ideal runs smack dab into the face of the practical, and falls on its ass. Perhaps one
2555:
I've noticed several totally 'red' accounts, which I presume means thay have made no edits anywhere, on
2050:
5966:
5937:
5844:
5617:
5575:
5566:
5494:
4940:
4574:
3413:
2876:
1910:
1296:
1152:
260:
38:
5879:
makes the tables of contents, especially noticeable on SPI cases' archive pages, virtually unreadable.
3951:
WP:RFCU redirects here. You may be looking for Knowledge:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U)
3755:
3619:
1655:
987:
6277:
6053:
5551:
5186:
4686:
4111:
1825:
1797:
819:
791:
484:
6004:
5633:
5601:
5455:
5137:
5096:
5024:
4806:
4602:
I opened my first ever case, but the bot didn't seem to be noticed. I have to do the rest manually?
4469:
4232:
4212:
4174:
3370:
3342:
3010:
2747:
2262:
1933:
1659:
1129:
While we're at it, I'm hoping to streamline the submission process a bit more; take a look over at
435:
4066:
It's also linked from a bunch of user pages, normally as a part of the "useful links" collection.
6015:
5143:
at the top of the page. I added it in for you when I reviewed the case. Otherwise, looked great!
5126:
5080:
4935:? I really don't think it's a good idea to feature them prominently at the top of the talk page.
3823:
3500:
3472:
3468:
3331:
3316:
3302:
3273:
3240:
2669:
2634:
2525:
2510:
1691:
1682:
Appendix: It is perfectly legal to use IPs to edit, but it is NOT legal to use IPs to circumvent
1563:
770:
6064:. Checkusers could watch the category and go to the locus where checkuser attention is needed.
4635:
I will be manually updating things (when I am around) about every hour till the bot is back. --
1868:. I understand i need to get a clerk to do this? Sorry to bother any help would be most welcome
4977:
4774:
4117:
3813:
2925:
2894:
2760:
2299:
1522:
1459:
1253:
354:
317:
213:
6078:
I believe it would be most beneficial to have a choice of process depending on circumstances.
2765:
Hello, I was wondering if I could become a trainnee cleck for SPI. I am currently involved in
2729:
1012:
417:. Do I need to list that on the main page or do I wait for a clerk? Thank you. Sincerely, --
343:
Hey, take a look at the move log; you're certainly not the only one to make that mistake! ;-)
5962:
5933:
5882:
does not get used over half the time, and it sometimes stands in the way of actual discourse.
5840:
5562:
5490:
5367:
5254:
4956:
4936:
4919:
4881:
4845:
4570:
4322:
4286:
4246:
3123:
is a little daunting at first, but if you encounter socks a lot it'll soon seem like home ;-)
2705:
2691:
2397:
1873:
1403:
1292:
1243:
1175:
1141:
1109:
750:
521:
374:
249:
202:
5590:
5058:
Another likely sock has appeared and I am not sure that I opened up the new case correctly:
3285:
840:
What is the proper method to report renewed activity in an archived case? I am referring to
5182:
4421:
2986:
2946:
2844:
2682:
2343:
2224:
1821:
1793:
1321:
1225:
816:
788:
480:
460:
166:
2429:
Don't worry about it now - it's appeared. I guess the bot just takes a bit to come round.
2091:
Are there any other analytic tools which could help discriminate such cases once detected?
366:
For what it's worth, I've been wanting a "prefix" option for those boxes for ages, now. –
8:
6247:
6211:
6094:
6047:
5983:
5907:
5585:
5479:
5448:
5392:
5263:
5237:
5206:
5149:
5089:
5041:
5017:
4861:
4799:
4662:
4641:
4562:
4546:
4492:
4462:
4390:
4386:
4301:
4266:
4167:
3852:
3839:
3705:
3569:
3094:
3078:
3023:
2861:
2434:
2419:
2246:
2056:
1926:
1727:
1387:
1206:
1202:
992:
428:
5530:
They have been blocked. Assuming your unsure how to open a sockpuppet case, if you read
4998:
2167:
It's not a checkuser tool, at any rate -- it doesn't require any special information. --
558:
Thank you. I never thought it likely, but did want to make absolutely certain. Regards.
6296:
6196:
6136:
5951:
5891:
5674:
5520:
5228:
5114:
5068:
4607:
4071:
4054:
4032:
4000:
3973:
3936:
3917:
3894:
3804:
3776:
3688:
3668:
3640:
3552:
3516:
3490:
3444:
3430:
3417:
3401:
3378:
3327:
3312:
3291:
3269:
3185:
3169:
2737:
2646:
2367:
2158:
2085:
How big is the issue of sophisticated sockpuppets that currently 'fly under the radar'?
2016:
1743:
1716:
1683:
1542:
1280:
1267:
1017:
961:
880:
761:
740:
731:
612:
563:
532:
509:
498:
408:
154:
136:
117:
4949:
Aside from whack-a-mole, how else would we tell other editors to watch out for them?—
4398:
278:
to replace "SOCKMASTER" in the material auto populated as the warning wants. The term
5770:
5756:
4973:
4825:
4788:
4452:
3762:
3626:
3392:
3362:
2921:
2890:
2293:
1950:
1513:
1450:
1249:
931:
581:
345:
308:
218:
171:
4483:
2654:
Ha! Seems I was 'beaten to the punch', by a few minutes (blocked @ 3:59!) Oh, well!
6035:
5539:
5442:
5382:
5363:
5222:
4951:
4914:
4877:
4841:
4834:
4622:
4349:
3738:
3602:
3263:
2831:
For placement under User reported cases (or Awaiting CheckUser if a clerk sees fit)
2719:
2701:
2687:
2391:
2241:
is relevant, as it's possible there's now open proxy use. Report is very old, now.
2186:
2117:
1958:
I guess people have other things to do than Knowledge. Busy with real life, etc. --
1869:
1765:
1397:
1198:
1169:
1135:
1103:
968:
891:
848:
719:
541:
The Thing That Should Not Be, don't worry, there is no sockpuppetry going on here.
517:
513:
368:
334:
292:
243:
196:
5559:
Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 29#Template:SockmasterProven
5822:
5816:
5740:
5655:
5002:
4743:
4727:
4417:
4196:
4192:
4152:
4017:
3909:
3901:
3483:
3461:
3254:
3066:
2981:
2958:
2942:
2912:
2817:
2788:
2766:
2319:
2220:
1961:
1316:
1221:
996:
600:
102:
6067:
Sometimes the necessary evidence is spread over multiple pages. In these cases
5869:
making SPI cases look too complicated and daunting for regular users to operate.
3425:
Another question to throw out there, I'm planning to place this template on the
2088:
Are there any other analytic tools which might help detect such potential abuses
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
6242:
6228:
6206:
6167:
6154:
6126:
6118:
6114:
6089:
6079:
5977:
5902:
5800:
5581:
5486:
5387:
5258:
5232:
5201:
5197:
5144:
5037:
4968:
4932:
4856:
4657:
4636:
4540:
4487:
4318:
4296:
4282:
4261:
4242:
4013:
3902:
3847:
3700:
3564:
3222:
The block I performed in this case is undergoing an interminable discussion at
3114:
3085:
2430:
2415:
2242:
631:
5418:
arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.
1537:
577:
I added 96.50.66.231 for SPI. This is my first one - did I do it correctly?
6180:
6172:
6163:
6150:
6122:
6110:
6109:
Typically this would be applied to a noticeboard discussions, such as one at
6072:
6068:
5924:
5873:
5516:
5512:
5508:
5301:
4603:
4445:
4401:, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (
4360:
4127:
4103:
4093:
4067:
4047:
4028:
3993:
3969:
3946:
3932:
3913:
3887:
3843:
3800:
3772:
3684:
3664:
3636:
3548:
3530:
3526:
3512:
3440:
3352:
3231:
3150:
3146:
3120:
3074:
2968:
2937:
Couldn't someone just run some kind of check to show that I am not a sock of
2774:
2770:
2733:
2168:
2154:
2143:
2129:
1894:
1812:
1731:
1702:
1575:
1488:
1352:
1333:
1263:
1121:
1066:
986:
as to how I have the cases set up, they're automatically-generated using the
921:
883:
867:
807:
659:
644:
559:
549:
538:
494:
451:
418:
150:
146:
132:
128:
113:
108:
6184:
5766:
4821:
4784:
4449:
3389:
2536:
1947:
1386:"Not awaiting checkuser" implies you have suspicions but aren't requesting
1210:
request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see
1076:
973:
578:
385:
683:; if they are important evidence, you must also seek advice by email first
6031:
5438:
5378:
4632:
3722:
3586:
3197:
the original report properly ;-) Apologies for that, my mistake. Thanks!
2715:
2662:(and now I see an easier way of linking to an account! Thanks MuZemike!)
2182:
2113:
2060:
2025:
2002:
1749:
887:
844:
715:
330:
288:
227:
180:
5835:
Twinkle remained happily oblivious of the new bot & subpage system.
2379:
Sockpuppet prevention discussion at Knowledge:Village pump (development)
2209:
The May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started. Please see
4739:
4723:
4222:
3250:
3198:
3154:
3127:
2809:
2780:
2339:
2108:
then try it yourself on some test cases. Give feedback here or on the
596:
3822:
but it hasn't shown up on the main page. Have I done something wrong?
1082:
might be handy reference for monkeying around with "status" templates.
5793:
1004:
624:
4718:. Came back about three hours later and the bot hadn't added it, so
1029:
Looking at the enumerations for SPICaseStatus, I see the following:
745:
Is there a reason that Knoblauch129 is out of chronological order?--
5890:
more natural way of presenting a discussion (like done with ANI). –
4539:
would be necessary before listing the other 11? Thanks in advance.
3227:
3070:
2139:
1730:
on IRC, and he doesn't seem to disagree with the conclusions here.
1356:
655:
5286:
3249:, we're struggling to keep up with this apparent sock puppeter. --
6191:, and I have made a sandbox highlighting what I propose for that
6061:
3529:
page. Not sure how useful that'll once the bot is running, mind.
1413:
But when would be a good time to ask or not ask for CheckUser? --
1031:
CUrequest, decline, endorse, inprogress, relist, completed, close
5685:
265:
I think I just created an orphaned sock w/ check user report...
5876:
as opposed to here because of the lack of structure over there.
2153:
definitive) evidence if the false positive rate is acceptable.
2096:
did this work a few months ago and have included a write-up at
967:
template for the sockmaster. This would allow the usage of the
908:
I've been doing some testing and mucking around today on SPI's
3754:
for a "slam-dunk" SPI I submitted to go from filing to closing
3618:
for a "slam-dunk" SPI I submitted to go from filing to closing
972:
currently being used in cases expect if they're submitted via
5323:
connect IPs to accounts is completely correct. Specifically:
4757:
4656:
We are in the process of getting it back up as we speak. --
3412:
I will also note that, unless Tim Song is willing to adjust
3268:
Can we update the archive box to link April and May 2010? --
4894:
Proposal: Category for tracking articles banned users edit,
2445:
MascotGuy (Maybe?) Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy
5532:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case
3224:
Knowledge:ANI#New editor's experience as evidence of guilt
2863:
4511:
I have some questions about submitting sockpuppet cases.
3489:
and have an SPI placed in only one category at a time? –
1862:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/JC1123581321/Archive
1343:
Not awaiting Checkuser or awaiting Checkuser processing?
3177:
Next time, make sure you submit the SPI case under the
2627:
Is this 'normal'? nb. I have only linked the user pages
2456:, only reporting becasue of the "Guy" in the user name.
860:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change
842:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change
4779:
It's been a while. Is there any reason for me to keep
4359:
Removed, thanks for pointing it out. Kindest regards,
2332:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/IRg0!ngt0cH4NG3D!S
1866:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/The cheapo/Archive
241:
has long been a closet favorite of mine. :) Thanks. –
194:
has long been a closet favorite of mine. :) Thanks. –
5857:
Proposal: one single section for individual SPI cases
4370:
Update on Checkuser and Oversight appointment process
2700:) is a blatantly obvious sock of blocked sockpuppets
1026:
On the whole, I rather like it. Some quick comments:
5425:has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.
4798:
I don't know; is it worth converting to using them?
4444:
We appear to have reached the transclusion limit on
3683:
admins or anything unusual occurring at the moment?
3547:
admins or anything unusual occurring at the moment?
2916:(although the report says he is a suspected sock of
1809:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Crashingthewaves
386:
5872:causing people to report suspected sock puppets to
5813:It looks OK to me - I can see it listed at WP:SPI.
3931:. Changing it would break a lot of incoming links.
2804:
Knowledge talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks
1201:has determined that there is a need for additional
941:
Knowledge:Pokémon investigations/SPICaseStatus/Core
5174:I have repeatedly been accused of being a sock of
4219:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Wes2k8/Archive
3309:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez
1583:Cool, thanks. Put still doesn't solve the problem
1351:as a sockpuppet. as he appears to have broken the
1092:Should we put "quick" requests on a subpage, like
669:Email Notification for SPI evidence and algorthims
4898:I have yet to save an edit I am about to make to
3326:Never mind. I figured out how to manually add it.
2409:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudafedfiend8
5788:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Emraanhashmi
5781:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Emraanhashmi
5133:There was one thing - please be sure to include
3876:Hello, this notification is to alert users that
2338:although I feel that it should be renamed under
304:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Edward Seler
5671:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Efgsdrthdty
4225:as the meatpuppet and sockpuppet in that case.
1133:, the new inputbox and its associated pages. –
6075:only creates needless bureacracy and delay.
6030:might help. Though I'm not holding my breath.
5284:I'm growing quite tired of constantly saying "
3477:Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review
3247:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Sunlight14
3166:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki-11233
3143:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Panda.1001
2963:Could someone please process the new stuff in
2205:CheckUser and Oversight Elections have started
1786:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Upgrade1
1359:article using a sock. Should I report this as
945:Knowledge:Pokémon investigations/SPICaseStatus
777:Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/Groupthink
415:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwanyewest
5060:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/2ne14ever
2478:This is a copy of the relevant line from the
5054:Did I open up a new investigation correctly?
2877:
1151:Looking at Twinkle, the form involved is in
590:Indication of accounts being cleared in SPIs
272:using the template but there was absolutely
5763:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Pplatis
4380:initial call for comments on the candidates
3400:That can be easily incorporated, I think. –
2965:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinbarg
2906:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby
2239:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby
2234:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby
1307:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Codedon
1131:Knowledge:Pokémon investigations/SPI/header
611:like that saying, "No news is good news." –
6125:, and then wait a long time for a result.
4967:Great idea. We're having a big problem on
3509:Category:SPI cases awaiting administration
1893:thanks for pointing it out. Kind regards,
1482:======<span style="font-size:150%": -->
6056:, and if there is agreement, will create
4617:I'm sure the bot will eventually add it.
3908:Should this not instead be a shortcut to
2836:Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ice99
779:has been handled before two older cases,
3878:Category:Suspected Knowledge sockpuppets
3870:Category:Suspected Knowledge sockpuppets
3073:on fair-use grounds and added it to the
2518:Knowledge talk:Long-term abuse/MascotGuy
2256:April and May archived cases not showing
1601:Please file a report with Checkuser, TIA
785:WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne
781:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins
679:Private information, emails, logs, etc,
217:
170:
18:Knowledge talk:Sockpuppet investigations
2855:Not sure of sufficient evidence to list
2024:Thanks a lot - now I feel really old.
14:
4714:I created the Jimmy McDaniels case at
4631:Looks like it crashed four hours ago.
3797:Editor accounts do NOT appear to match
3661:Editor accounts do NOT appear to match
2073:A potential new tool for SPI analysis.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
6088:Where do you see this being applied?
4910:Category:Pages edited by banned users
3083:
2342:per the evidence in the SPI. Thanks,
2098:User:TerryE/Supplemental SPI analysis
2001:by contacting J. Delanoy on email).
6060:. This process would function like
5386:if he or she created more socks. --
4783:or is it never going to be used? --
4700:Bot still doesn't seem to be running
4521:
4385:Those actively being considered for
4016:(unless they are mis-typed links to
3245:Please could someone have a look at
3184:s name (in this case, Wiki-11233). –
3141:Incidentally, question for anyone -
2655:
542:
25:
4992:Tool to check for overlapping edits
4756:You might want to try purging your
4221:. An anon IP made similar edits to
3168:and already tagged/bagged/closed. –
2497:the correct venue please advise me!
1855:Need a bit of help (formality wise)
1538:preload page looked quite different
1444:Checkuser, admin and clerk comments
862:. I've also listed the case on the
23:
6295:Thoughts? Should we go for this? –
5257:is the reponsible one here. XD --
3217:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz
3145:doesn't seem to be in the list at
2464:User:Sweet 'n' Sour Love Magic Guy
2055:There's another one out there now
917:A replacement/deprecation for the
595:report and on my user Talk page.--
239:commons:Category:Troll sockpuppets
192:commons:Category:Troll sockpuppets
145:I've had this matter addressed at
24:
6310:
5682:Aha! Thanks. Just found another:
4440:Cases requiring checkuser missing
3793:Editor accounts potentially match
3657:Editor accounts potentially match
2777:(those are my primary areas). --
1658:asked for explaination for 3. on
1193:CheckUser and Oversight Elections
836:Renewed activity in archived case
508:I answered this same question at
5285:
5196:Editor was blocked as a sock by
4705:
4590:
4405:
4217:How would I go about re-opening
3929:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser
2656:
2357:
1884:
1836:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser
1503:
1157:twinklearvCallbackChangeCategory
1007:, we can more afford to do this.
980:Category-based SPI case listings
675:Evidence and SPI case guidelines
543:
29:
6058:Category:Requests for checkuser
5436:For the Arbitration Committee,
4416:For the Arbitration Committee,
3095:
3086:
2282:That's because that system was
1055:" (which I think is currently "
537:That's because Until It Sleeps
302:I moved it without redirect to
5571:17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
5544:21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
5525:21:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
5499:23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
5463:20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
5403:21:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
5372:20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
5349:11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
5333:19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
5314:15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
5274:20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
5248:16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
5217:20:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
5191:14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
3771:Hmm ... interesting. Thanks!
3635:Hmm ... interesting. Thanks!
1904:Has CU broken completely down?
1159:(producing the form) and the "
573:Did I add a new one correctly?
284:appears in the provided text.
13:
1:
6300:03:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
6291:(for the "quick CU requests")
6258:15:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6232:14:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
6222:20:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6200:20:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6158:20:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6140:19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6130:19:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6105:17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
6083:16:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
5982:
5978:
5597:Anyway, blocked editors are:
5160:13:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5129:13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5104:13:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5083:13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5046:14:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5032:13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
5011:09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
4982:05:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
4963:07:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
4952:
4945:07:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
4926:06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
4915:
4886:20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4872:20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4850:19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
4547:
4541:
3507:and have a new category like
3307:To this page. Opened this up
2810:
2807:
2781:
2778:
2217:For the Arbitration Committee
1365:awaiting Checkuser processing
1218:For the Arbitration Committee
1155:, in particular the function
681:may not be posted on the wiki
616:21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
605:06:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
585:02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
568:20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
553:20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
526:20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
503:20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
455:20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
443:20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
422:17:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
395:03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
380:12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
362:16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
339:16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
325:16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
297:16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
255:12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
233:01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
222:Checkuser is not for fishing.
208:12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
186:01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
175:Checkuser is not for fishing.
159:13:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
141:19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
122:13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
6040:05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
6020:21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
5997:17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
5990:
5971:16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
5955:06:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
5942:07:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
5928:04:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
5918:00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
5895:00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
5849:00:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
5831:10:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
5808:09:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
5409:Update on Audit Subcommittee
5354:How does SPI/checkuser work?
4957:
4920:
4024:WP:Sockpuppet investigations
2941:? I been waiting some days.
2818:
2816:
2789:
2787:
2347:
1398:
1170:
1136:
1104:
939:: My draft templates are at
467:The Thing That Should Not Be
369:
244:
197:
7:
6162:Perhaps it was better with
5988:
5984:
5775:10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
5749:19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
5678:19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
5664:19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
5515:are suspected sockpuppets.
4830:13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4814:12:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4793:04:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4767:17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4748:06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4732:06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4695:04:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4673:01:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
4652:19:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4627:15:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4612:14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4579:04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4553:03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
4503:13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4477:13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4456:13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4426:21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
4364:13:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
4354:12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
4327:13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4312:13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4291:13:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4277:13:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4251:13:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4205:13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
4131:18:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
4121:16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
3505:Category:All open SPI cases
2597:Roger Rabbit's Car Tune Jam
2559:creating new accounts, eg:
2344:
1291:Not anytime soon, I think.
465:I am a little worried that
10:
6315:
5534:it tells you how. Regards
5280:Instructions tweaked a bit
4703:
4588:
4107:23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
4076:04:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
4062:02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
4037:01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
4012:But any incoming links to
4008:01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
3978:01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
3678:Anything special going on?
3542:Anything special going on?
3414:User:Tim Song/spihelper.js
2513:) 22:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
2033:05:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
2020:05:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
2010:05:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
1996:10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
1954:10:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
1941:16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1919:15:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1802:03:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
1773:16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1735:16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1721:15:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1706:15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1696:15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1579:15:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1568:15:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1548:13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
1530:10:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
1427:18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
1409:05:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1381:21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1230:18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
1181:02:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1153:User:AzaToth/twinklearv.js
1147:00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1125:08:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
896:12:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
871:15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
853:15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
828:21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
811:21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
800:20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
765:21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
755:21:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
735:16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
724:16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
512:; it isn't a sock, it's a
6054:Template:Checkuser needed
5650:Original conversation is
5552:Template:SockmasterProven
5088:Yes, you opened it fine.
4781:User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM
4406:
4182:14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
4161:09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
4145:to an editor's talkpage.
3960:19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3941:14:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3922:13:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3897:05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
3863:01:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
3832:00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
3818:I have opened a new case
3521:18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
3494:02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
3449:18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
3434:16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
3421:23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
3405:23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
3396:23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
3382:22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
3336:17:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3321:17:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
3297:09:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
3278:09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
3259:15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
3236:16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
2449:These accounts were seen
1492:22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
1467:22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
1337:11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
1327:02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
1301:19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1286:11:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1115:09:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
1089:Category tree is awesome.
1021:01:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
664:16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
639:02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
4720:added it myself at 06:26
4399:Wikimedia privacy policy
4102:didn't go as planned? --
3809:15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3781:15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3767:14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3746:14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3716:14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3693:14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3673:15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3645:15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3631:14:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3610:14:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3580:14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3557:14:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
3534:10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
3371:Template:SPI case status
3343:Template:SPI case status
3204:21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
3189:21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
3173:21:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
3160:21:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
3133:21:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
3104:21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
2972:22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
2951:21:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
2930:20:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
2899:20:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
2883:17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
2869:
2865:
2850:15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
2825:22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2796:21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2756:22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2674:05:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2650:05:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2639:04:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2545:02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2530:02:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2439:07:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
2424:11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
2402:04:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
2371:20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2352:19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2314:05:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2277:04:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2251:00:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
2229:15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
1660:user talk:219.207.18.236
1062:If you haven't already,
1040:I might suggest either "
699:In this case, I wanted:
6289:User:Netalarm/SPI quick
5761:There is an open case (
4393:permissions are listed
3501:Category:Open SPI cases
3473:Category:Open SPI cases
3469:Category:Open SPI cases
3286:aren't archived anymore
2732:was filed (by me) with
2611:Cadillac Black Jack Guy
2191:00:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
2172:23:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2163:20:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2148:20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2133:18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2122:18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
2068:01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
1898:19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
1878:20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
1845:21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
1830:20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
1816:16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
760:I already handled it. –
6284:User:Netalarm/SPI lab2
5861:The concept of having
5504:Sockpuppetry suspected
3872:nominated for deletion
3740:Questions or Comments?
3604:Questions or Comments?
3499:IMO, we should rename
2977:Is this a sock puppet?
2609:) created new account
2577:) created new account
2077:I have just raised an
1767:Questions or Comments?
1483:section </span: -->
1361:not awaiting Checkuser
904:Push towards "SPI 2.0"
479:) is a sock puppet of
223:
176:
127:Should I take this to
5932:What DeltaQuad says.
5618:Rfhrtgfrvteynh5ygrewf
4903:connected contributor
4716:03:28, 30 August 2010
4237:few or no other edits
3453:Double-categorization
3439:Top is fine with me.
2516:Note: Reposting from
1834:There are notices at
1554:Page Creation For SPI
1435:"Conclusions" section
1199:Arbitration Committee
988:<categorytree: -->
677:contains the warning
221:
174:
42:of past discussions.
4339:SPCUClerkbot message
4241:is the anon IP. ----
4239:outside this topic.
4195:. And thanks again.
4193:to the usual address
4137:Enthusiastic helpers
2557:wp:User creation log
1711:sooner the better.
1440:appopriate section.
1165:twinklearv.callbacks
858:All sorted now. See
5634:Dfrgegrthrfweqdeqwe
5602:Ghtrgwefwetjnrgrfea
5423:summary of activity
5170:Sorry to bother you
4411:lists.wikimedia.org
4376:call for applicants
3111:filed an SPI report
2748:Delicious carbuncle
2595:03:58, 25 May 2010
2563:03:36, 25 May 2010
2470:User:Easy Rider Guy
2336:User reported cases
2334:to be listed under
1631:user:219.207.18.236
1511:per no objections.
1051:On the subject of "
989:MediaWiki extension
951:Simpler case format
822:(formerly known as
815:OK then, thanks :)
794:(formerly known as
5576:Ring any bells...?
5430:invited to discuss
5415:Audit Subcommittee
4378:(19 July) and the
3927:It's from the old
3824:Christopher Connor
3503:to something like
3467:adds all cases to
3113:- it looks pretty
2551:Is this Supicious?
2110:paper's talk page.
1347:Hello, I reported
879:The editor is now
516:. All is well. --
261:Massive problem...
224:
177:
6278:New header design
5821:for Twinkle? ;-)
5806:
5686:Ergrthsgdersfserg
5485:One on splitting
5465:
5428:The community is
5229:properly punished
4931:What happened to
4536:
4535:
4240:
4112:Is everything OK?
3945:Plus, it says on
3744:
3608:
3101:
3065:Hi all. the user
2730:original SPI case
2514:
2480:User creation log
2325:{{editprotected}}
2211:the election page
1807:All sorted, see:
1771:
1747:
1673:
1672:
1407:
1212:the election page
1179:
1145:
1113:
1013:<inputbox: -->
991:(as also used at
536:
393:
378:
253:
206:
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
6306:
6255:
6245:
6219:
6209:
6102:
6092:
6005:what should i do
5995:
5994:
5992:
5986:
5980:
5915:
5910:
5905:
5820:
5805:
5803:
5797:
5791:
5738:
5737:
5704:deleted contribs
5688:
5593:
5458:
5447:Cross-posted by
5446:
5400:
5395:
5390:
5383:Operating System
5330:
5289:
5271:
5266:
5261:
5255:Timotheus Canens
5245:
5235:
5214:
5209:
5204:
5157:
5147:
5142:
5136:
5125:
5119:
5099:
5079:
5073:
5027:
4959:
4954:
4937:Timotheus Canens
4922:
4917:
4907:
4901:
4869:
4859:
4809:
4764:
4709:
4708:
4670:
4665:
4660:
4649:
4644:
4639:
4594:
4593:
4585:Where's the bot?
4571:Timotheus Canens
4567:
4561:
4549:
4543:
4522:
4500:
4495:
4490:
4472:
4412:
4410:
4409:
4408:
4309:
4299:
4274:
4264:
4226:
4213:Reopening a case
4177:
4057:
4050:
4003:
3996:
3957:
3892:
3860:
3850:
3741:
3736:
3734:
3731:
3728:
3725:
3713:
3703:
3605:
3600:
3598:
3595:
3592:
3589:
3577:
3567:
3488:
3482:
3466:
3460:
3367:
3361:
3357:
3351:
3294:
3288:
3193:Next time, I'll
3183:
3102:
3097:
3091:
3088:
3062:
3041:deleted contribs
3020:
2999:deleted contribs
2879:
2872:
2871:
2867:
2847:
2842:
2823:
2820:
2815:
2812:
2794:
2791:
2786:
2783:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2505:
2365:
2361:
2360:
2349:
2346:
2326:
2312:
2308:
2302:
2296:
2289:
2265:
2065:
2054:
2030:
2007:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1936:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1842:
1768:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1741:
1646:then revert back
1611:
1610:
1545:
1540:
1528:
1525:
1516:
1507:
1506:
1465:
1462:
1453:
1400:
1396:
1324:
1319:
1293:Timotheus Canens
1283:
1172:
1168:
1138:
1134:
1106:
1102:
1081:
1075:
1071:
1065:
969:Special:MovePage
966:
960:
936:
930:
926:
920:
824:ChaosControl1994
796:ChaosControl1994
629:
548:
547:
546:
530:
438:
392:
390:
371:
367:
360:
357:
348:
323:
320:
311:
246:
242:
230:
199:
195:
183:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
6314:
6313:
6309:
6308:
6307:
6305:
6304:
6303:
6280:
6253:
6243:
6217:
6207:
6100:
6090:
6052:I've created a
6050:
6007:
5913:
5908:
5903:
5859:
5814:
5801:
5795:
5792:
5784:
5759:
5689:
5684:
5683:
5589:
5578:
5555:
5506:
5483:
5456:
5411:
5398:
5393:
5388:
5356:
5328:
5282:
5269:
5264:
5259:
5243:
5233:
5225:
5212:
5207:
5202:
5183:Itshayfevertime
5172:
5155:
5145:
5140:
5138:SPI case status
5134:
5121:
5115:
5097:
5075:
5069:
5056:
5025:
4994:
4972:under attack.
4905:
4899:
4896:
4867:
4857:
4837:
4807:
4777:
4762:
4712:
4711:
4706:
4702:
4685:is another. --
4668:
4663:
4658:
4647:
4642:
4637:
4597:
4596:
4591:
4587:
4565:
4559:
4551:
4513:
4498:
4493:
4488:
4470:
4442:
4404:
4402:
4372:
4341:
4317:same edit. ----
4307:
4297:
4272:
4262:
4215:
4175:
4139:
4114:
4096:
4055:
4048:
4001:
3994:
3955:
3906:
3888:
3886:. Thank you. —
3874:
3858:
3848:
3816:
3739:
3732:
3729:
3726:
3723:
3711:
3701:
3680:
3603:
3596:
3593:
3590:
3587:
3575:
3565:
3544:
3486:
3480:
3464:
3458:
3365:
3359:
3355:
3349:
3346:
3305:
3303:Not transcluded
3292:
3284:
3266:
3243:
3241:User:Sunlight14
3220:
3181:
3026:
2984:
2979:
2961:
2909:
2857:
2845:
2840:
2833:
2763:
2685:
2657:
2553:
2540:
2520:, Thanks all!
2447:
2412:
2381:
2358:
2356:
2324:
2322:
2306:
2300:
2294:
2290:
2287:
2263:
2258:
2236:
2207:
2075:
2061:
2048:
2026:
2003:
1989:
1986:
1983:
1980:
1977:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1934:
1911:Kim D. Petersen
1906:
1885:
1883:
1857:
1840:
1822:Fuhghettaboutit
1794:Fuhghettaboutit
1789:
1766:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1750:
1556:
1543:
1536:
1523:
1514:
1512:
1504:
1500:
1460:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1437:
1345:
1322:
1317:
1309:
1281:
1246:
1195:
1079:
1073:
1069:
1063:
964:
958:
934:
928:
924:
918:
906:
838:
773:
771:Just a question
743:
671:
647:
635:
625:
592:
575:
544:
481:Until It Sleeps
463:
436:
411:
355:
346:
344:
318:
309:
307:
263:
228:
216:
181:
169:
105:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
6312:
6293:
6292:
6286:
6279:
6276:
6275:
6274:
6273:
6272:
6271:
6270:
6269:
6268:
6267:
6266:
6265:
6264:
6263:
6262:
6261:
6260:
6238:
6176:
6173:AFD discussion
6049:
6046:
6045:
6044:
6043:
6042:
6006:
6003:
6002:
6001:
6000:
5999:
5947:
5946:
5945:
5944:
5930:
5887:
5886:
5883:
5880:
5877:
5870:
5858:
5855:
5854:
5853:
5852:
5851:
5783:
5778:
5758:
5755:
5754:
5753:
5752:
5751:
5648:
5647:
5631:
5615:
5577:
5574:
5554:
5548:
5547:
5546:
5505:
5502:
5482:
5476:
5475:
5474:
5437:
5410:
5407:
5406:
5405:
5355:
5352:
5336:
5335:
5309:
5306:
5281:
5278:
5277:
5276:
5224:
5221:
5220:
5219:
5171:
5168:
5167:
5166:
5165:
5164:
5163:
5162:
5055:
5052:
5051:
5050:
5049:
5048:
4993:
4990:
4989:
4988:
4987:
4986:
4985:
4984:
4969:Libertarianism
4895:
4892:
4891:
4890:
4889:
4888:
4836:
4833:
4817:
4816:
4776:
4775:New templates?
4773:
4772:
4771:
4770:
4769:
4751:
4750:
4704:
4701:
4698:
4680:
4679:
4678:
4677:
4676:
4675:
4589:
4586:
4583:
4582:
4581:
4545:
4534:
4533:
4530:
4526:
4519:
4512:
4509:
4508:
4507:
4506:
4505:
4484:User:Δ/Sandbox
4441:
4438:
4437:
4436:
4374:Following the
4371:
4368:
4367:
4366:
4340:
4337:
4336:
4335:
4334:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4229:118.208.43.187
4214:
4211:
4210:
4209:
4208:
4207:
4185:
4184:
4138:
4135:
4134:
4133:
4113:
4110:
4098:I think maybe
4095:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4083:
4082:
4081:
4080:
4079:
4078:
3966:
3905:
3900:
3873:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3840:NuclearWarfare
3837:It looks like
3815:
3814:Help with case
3812:
3788:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3718:
3679:
3676:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3582:
3543:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3537:
3536:
3455:
3454:
3451:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3345:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3304:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3290:
3265:
3262:
3242:
3239:
3219:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3175:
3164:I moved it to
3136:
3135:
3124:
3118:
2978:
2975:
2960:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2908:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2856:
2853:
2832:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2762:
2761:Trainnee Clerk
2759:
2684:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2625:
2624:
2593:
2592:
2552:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2538:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2492:
2483:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2467:
2466:
2457:
2454:late yesterday
2446:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2411:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2380:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2321:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2257:
2254:
2235:
2232:
2213:for details.
2206:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2178:
2106:MediaWiki::API
2093:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2074:
2071:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1788:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1728:NuclearWarfare
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1665:219.207.18.236
1662:
1653:
1650:219.207.18.236
1647:
1641:
1633:
1628:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1485:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1445:
1442:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1279:
1277:
1248:I notice that
1245:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1009:
1008:
982:: If you look
977:
948:
905:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
874:
873:
837:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
772:
769:
768:
767:
742:
739:
738:
737:
709:
708:
705:
693:
692:
670:
667:
646:
643:
642:
641:
633:
619:
618:
591:
588:
574:
571:
556:
555:
539:was renamed to
528:
462:
459:
458:
457:
445:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
262:
259:
258:
257:
215:
212:
211:
210:
168:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
89:
84:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
6311:
6302:
6301:
6298:
6290:
6287:
6285:
6282:
6281:
6259:
6256:
6251:
6250:
6246:
6239:
6235:
6234:
6233:
6230:
6225:
6224:
6223:
6220:
6215:
6214:
6210:
6203:
6202:
6201:
6198:
6194:
6190:
6186:
6182:
6177:
6174:
6169:
6165:
6161:
6160:
6159:
6156:
6152:
6147:
6146:many requests
6143:
6142:
6141:
6138:
6133:
6132:
6131:
6128:
6124:
6120:
6116:
6112:
6108:
6107:
6106:
6103:
6098:
6097:
6093:
6087:
6086:
6085:
6084:
6081:
6076:
6074:
6070:
6065:
6063:
6059:
6055:
6041:
6037:
6033:
6029:
6026:
6025:
6024:
6023:
6022:
6021:
6017:
6013:
6012:116.71.15.192
5998:
5993:
5987:
5981:
5974:
5973:
5972:
5968:
5964:
5959:
5958:
5957:
5956:
5953:
5943:
5939:
5935:
5931:
5929:
5926:
5921:
5920:
5919:
5916:
5911:
5906:
5899:
5898:
5897:
5896:
5893:
5884:
5881:
5878:
5875:
5871:
5868:
5867:
5866:
5864:
5850:
5846:
5842:
5838:
5834:
5833:
5832:
5829:
5828:
5825:
5818:
5812:
5811:
5810:
5809:
5804:
5799:
5798:
5789:
5782:
5777:
5776:
5772:
5768:
5764:
5750:
5747:
5746:
5743:
5735:
5732:
5729:
5726:
5723:
5720:
5717:
5714:
5711:
5710:nuke contribs
5708:
5705:
5702:
5699:
5696:
5693:
5687:
5681:
5680:
5679:
5676:
5672:
5668:
5667:
5666:
5665:
5662:
5661:
5658:
5653:
5645:
5642:
5639:
5635:
5632:
5629:
5626:
5623:
5619:
5616:
5613:
5610:
5607:
5603:
5600:
5599:
5598:
5595:
5592:
5587:
5583:
5573:
5572:
5568:
5564:
5560:
5553:
5545:
5541:
5537:
5533:
5529:
5528:
5527:
5526:
5522:
5518:
5514:
5513:User:Elgor008
5510:
5509:User:Elgor007
5501:
5500:
5496:
5492:
5488:
5481:
5478:Two RFC's at
5473:
5472:
5468:
5467:
5466:
5464:
5461:
5459:
5452:
5451:
5444:
5440:
5434:
5431:
5426:
5424:
5419:
5416:
5404:
5401:
5396:
5391:
5384:
5380:
5376:
5375:
5374:
5373:
5369:
5365:
5360:
5351:
5350:
5346:
5342:
5334:
5331:
5326:
5322:
5318:
5317:
5316:
5315:
5312:
5311:
5310:
5307:
5304:
5299:
5297:
5295:
5292:
5288:
5275:
5272:
5267:
5262:
5256:
5252:
5251:
5250:
5249:
5246:
5241:
5240:
5236:
5230:
5218:
5215:
5210:
5205:
5199:
5195:
5194:
5193:
5192:
5188:
5184:
5180:
5177:
5161:
5158:
5153:
5152:
5148:
5139:
5132:
5131:
5130:
5127:
5124:
5120:
5118:
5113:
5112:
5107:
5106:
5105:
5102:
5100:
5093:
5092:
5087:
5086:
5085:
5084:
5081:
5078:
5074:
5072:
5067:
5066:
5061:
5047:
5043:
5039:
5035:
5034:
5033:
5030:
5028:
5021:
5020:
5015:
5014:
5013:
5012:
5009:
5008:
5005:
5000:
4983:
4979:
4975:
4970:
4966:
4965:
4964:
4961:
4960:
4955:
4948:
4947:
4946:
4942:
4938:
4934:
4930:
4929:
4928:
4927:
4924:
4923:
4918:
4911:
4904:
4887:
4883:
4879:
4875:
4874:
4873:
4870:
4865:
4864:
4860:
4854:
4853:
4852:
4851:
4847:
4843:
4832:
4831:
4827:
4823:
4815:
4812:
4810:
4803:
4802:
4797:
4796:
4795:
4794:
4790:
4786:
4782:
4768:
4765:
4759:
4755:
4754:
4753:
4752:
4749:
4745:
4741:
4736:
4735:
4734:
4733:
4729:
4725:
4721:
4717:
4697:
4696:
4692:
4688:
4684:
4674:
4671:
4666:
4661:
4655:
4654:
4653:
4650:
4645:
4640:
4634:
4630:
4629:
4628:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4615:
4614:
4613:
4609:
4605:
4601:
4580:
4576:
4572:
4564:
4557:
4556:
4555:
4554:
4550:
4544:
4531:
4527:
4524:
4523:
4520:
4517:
4504:
4501:
4496:
4491:
4485:
4480:
4479:
4478:
4475:
4473:
4466:
4465:
4460:
4459:
4458:
4457:
4454:
4451:
4447:
4435:
4434:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4427:
4423:
4419:
4414:
4400:
4396:
4392:
4388:
4383:
4381:
4377:
4365:
4362:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4351:
4347:
4328:
4324:
4320:
4315:
4314:
4313:
4310:
4305:
4304:
4300:
4294:
4293:
4292:
4288:
4284:
4280:
4279:
4278:
4275:
4270:
4269:
4265:
4259:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4252:
4248:
4244:
4238:
4234:
4230:
4224:
4220:
4206:
4203:
4202:
4199:
4194:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4186:
4183:
4180:
4178:
4171:
4170:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4159:
4158:
4155:
4150:
4146:
4144:
4132:
4129:
4125:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4119:
4109:
4108:
4105:
4101:
4077:
4073:
4069:
4065:
4064:
4063:
4060:
4059:
4058:
4051:
4045:
4040:
4039:
4038:
4034:
4030:
4026:
4025:
4019:
4015:
4011:
4010:
4009:
4006:
4005:
4004:
3997:
3990:
3985:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3975:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3962:
3961:
3958:
3952:
3948:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3938:
3934:
3930:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3919:
3915:
3911:
3904:
3899:
3898:
3895:
3893:
3891:
3885:
3884:
3879:
3871:
3864:
3861:
3856:
3855:
3851:
3845:
3844:User:Tim Song
3842:
3841:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3833:
3829:
3825:
3821:
3811:
3810:
3806:
3802:
3798:
3794:
3782:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3769:
3768:
3764:
3760:
3756:
3753:
3749:
3748:
3747:
3742:
3735:
3719:
3717:
3714:
3709:
3708:
3704:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3675:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3658:
3646:
3642:
3638:
3634:
3633:
3632:
3628:
3624:
3620:
3617:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3606:
3599:
3583:
3581:
3578:
3573:
3572:
3568:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3554:
3550:
3535:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3492:
3485:
3478:
3474:
3470:
3463:
3452:
3450:
3446:
3442:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3432:
3428:
3423:
3422:
3419:
3415:
3406:
3403:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3394:
3391:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3383:
3380:
3375:
3373:
3372:
3364:
3354:
3344:
3337:
3333:
3329:
3328:Bali ultimate
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3318:
3314:
3313:Bali ultimate
3310:
3298:
3295:
3287:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3275:
3271:
3270:Joopercoopers
3261:
3260:
3256:
3252:
3248:
3238:
3237:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3218:
3205:
3202:
3201:
3196:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3187:
3180:
3176:
3174:
3171:
3167:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3158:
3157:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3134:
3131:
3130:
3125:
3122:
3119:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3100:
3098:
3090:
3089:
3080:
3079:I'm-Back-1001
3076:
3075:PlayStation 3
3072:
3068:
3063:
3060:
3057:
3054:
3051:
3048:
3045:
3042:
3039:
3036:
3033:
3030:
3025:
3024:I'm-Back-1001
3021:
3018:
3015:
3012:
3009:
3006:
3003:
3000:
2997:
2994:
2991:
2988:
2983:
2974:
2973:
2970:
2966:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2919:
2914:
2907:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2880:
2874:
2873:
2852:
2851:
2848:
2843:
2837:
2826:
2821:
2813:
2805:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2792:
2784:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2758:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2742:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2727:
2724:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2710:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2696:
2693:
2689:
2676:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2666:220.101.28.25
2653:
2652:
2651:
2648:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2631:220.101.28.25
2622:
2619:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2605:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2587:
2584:
2580:
2579:Goofytrevor94
2576:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2558:
2546:
2543:
2542:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2522:220.101.28.25
2519:
2515:
2512:
2508:
2507:220.101.28.25
2496:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2481:
2471:
2468:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2455:
2452:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2410:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2389:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:Please see:
2372:
2369:
2364:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2350:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2330:I would like
2329:
2328:
2327:
2315:
2311:
2309:
2303:
2297:
2285:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2231:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2212:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2179:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2131:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2102:
2099:
2090:
2087:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2080:
2070:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2058:
2052:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2008:
2006:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1939:
1937:
1930:
1929:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1899:
1896:
1891:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1846:
1843:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1787:
1774:
1769:
1762:
1745:
1744:edit conflict
1740:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1688:174.3.123.220
1685:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1648:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1626:user:JohnInDC
1624:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1560:174.3.123.220
1549:
1546:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1520:
1519:
1510:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1463:
1457:
1456:
1441:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1320:
1314:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1244:SPCUClerkbot?
1239:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1164:
1163:" section of
1160:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1107:
1100:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1078:
1068:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1050:
1045:
1044:" or simply "
1041:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1030:
1028:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
985:
981:
978:
975:
970:
963:
956:
952:
949:
946:
942:
938:
933:
923:
915:
914:
913:
911:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:User:Meletian
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
872:
869:
865:
864:main SPI page
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
843:
829:
825:
821:
818:
814:
813:
812:
809:
804:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
790:
786:
782:
778:
766:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
736:
733:
728:
727:
726:
725:
721:
717:
713:
706:
702:
701:
700:
697:
691:
688:
687:
686:
684:
682:
676:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
640:
637:
636:
630:
628:
621:
620:
617:
614:
609:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
587:
586:
582:
580:
570:
569:
565:
561:
554:
551:
540:
534:
533:edit conflict
529:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
486:
482:
478:
475:
472:
468:
456:
453:
450:
446:
444:
441:
439:
432:
431:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
396:
391:
389:
383:
382:
381:
376:
372:
365:
364:
363:
358:
352:
351:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
321:
315:
314:
305:
301:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
285:
283:
282:
277:
276:
271:
266:
256:
251:
247:
240:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
220:
209:
204:
200:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
184:
173:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
124:
123:
119:
115:
110:
96:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
6294:
6248:
6212:
6095:
6077:
6066:
6051:
6008:
5948:
5888:
5862:
5860:
5826:
5823:
5794:
5786:I just made
5785:
5760:
5744:
5741:
5730:
5724:
5718:
5712:
5706:
5700:
5694:
5659:
5656:
5649:
5640:
5624:
5608:
5596:
5591:Example edit
5579:
5556:
5507:
5484:
5471:Discuss this
5469:
5453:
5449:
5435:
5427:
5420:
5412:
5357:
5337:
5324:
5320:
5303:
5302:
5290:
5283:
5253:It would be
5238:
5226:
5173:
5150:
5122:
5116:
5110:
5094:
5090:
5076:
5070:
5064:
5057:
5022:
5018:
5006:
5003:
4995:
4974:CarolMooreDC
4950:
4913:
4897:
4862:
4838:
4818:
4804:
4800:
4778:
4713:
4681:
4598:
4537:
4518:
4514:
4467:
4463:
4443:
4433:Discuss this
4431:
4415:
4384:
4373:
4342:
4302:
4267:
4216:
4200:
4197:
4172:
4168:
4156:
4153:
4151:
4147:
4140:
4118:Orderinchaos
4115:
4097:
4053:
4052:
4043:
4021:
3999:
3998:
3988:
3983:
3950:
3907:
3889:
3881:
3875:
3853:
3838:
3817:
3796:
3792:
3789:
3751:
3706:
3681:
3660:
3656:
3653:
3615:
3570:
3545:
3456:
3426:
3424:
3411:
3376:
3369:
3347:
3306:
3267:
3244:
3221:
3199:
3194:
3178:
3155:
3128:
3092:
3084:
3064:
3055:
3049:
3043:
3037:
3031:
3022:
3013:
3007:
3001:
2995:
2989:
2980:
2967:? thanks. --
2962:
2938:
2922:UnknownThing
2917:
2910:
2891:UnknownThing
2862:
2858:
2834:
2764:
2740:
2722:
2708:
2694:
2686:
2683:Case rename?
2663:
2628:
2626:
2617:
2603:
2585:
2571:
2554:
2537:
2503:
2502:
2494:
2489:
2477:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2413:
2392:
2382:
2362:
2335:
2323:
2291:
2259:
2237:
2216:
2215:
2208:
2105:
2103:
2094:
2076:
2062:
2047:
2027:
2004:
1959:
1931:
1927:
1907:
1889:
1858:
1790:
1640:reverts edit
1592:But anyways:
1557:
1517:
1508:
1501:
1454:
1447:
1438:
1391:
1355:rule on the
1346:
1312:
1310:
1270:
1256:
1250:SPCUClerkbot
1247:
1237:Discuss this
1235:
1217:
1216:
1203:oversighters
1196:
1010:
1005:browser tabs
993:WP:INCUBATOR
979:
950:
916:
910:testing area
907:
839:
774:
744:
711:
710:
698:
694:
689:
680:
678:
673:The section
672:
648:
632:
626:
593:
576:
557:
487:
473:
464:
461:Sock puppet?
433:
429:
412:
387:
349:
312:
286:
280:
279:
274:
273:
269:
267:
264:
225:
214:Illustration
178:
167:Illustration
131:instead? --
106:
75:
43:
37:
6144:I've filed
6048:New process
5379:Web browser
5364:a_man_alone
4878:Superchrome
4842:Superchrome
4548:Speak to me
4235:) has made
2920:). Cheers,
2728:), but the
2702:FrameWave20
2688:Brickriver2
2565:Goofytrevor
2493:If this is
2393:Timeshifter
2079:SPI request
1870:Ottawa4ever
1684:wp:edit war
1614:Sockmaster
1498:Conclusions
1479:rather than
1399:Luna Santin
1171:Luna Santin
1137:Luna Santin
1105:Luna Santin
747:Peter cohen
518:Floquenbeam
510:WP:HELPDESK
370:Luna Santin
245:Luna Santin
198:Luna Santin
36:This is an
5728:block user
5722:filter log
5341:Quantum666
5176:Oliver0071
4563:SPI report
4542:Backtable
4418:Carcharoth
4319:moreno oso
4283:moreno oso
4243:moreno oso
4223:St. Joseph
3752:full month
3750:It took a
3616:full month
3614:It took a
3283:SPI cases
3179:sockmaster
3067:Panda.1001
3053:block user
3047:page moves
3011:block user
3005:page moves
2982:Panda.1001
2943:Weakopedia
2913:Weakopedia
2866:RANSPORTER
2221:KnightLago
1652:reverts me
1222:KnightLago
1207:checkusers
817:SuperSonic
789:SuperSonic
741:List order
447:Listed by
413:I started
409:Do I list?
95:Archive 15
87:Archive 10
6229:Jehochman
6155:Jehochman
6127:Jehochman
6080:Jehochman
5963:T. Canens
5934:T. Canens
5841:T. Canens
5757:Open case
5734:block log
5582:Gogo Dodo
5563:T. Canens
5491:T. Canens
5198:Sandstein
5038:SummerPhD
4999:Wikistalk
4633:Evidence.
4391:Oversight
4387:Checkuser
4256:Reopened
4143:this post
4100:this move
4068:T. Canens
3933:T. Canens
3513:T. Canens
3441:T. Canens
3087:Alphathon
3059:block log
3017:block log
2819:Notify Me
2790:Notify Me
2431:Quantpole
2416:Quantpole
2284:abandoned
2243:Hipocrite
1620:Evidence
1509:Confirmed
1388:checkuser
1349:Dongsauce
1053:completed
1046:checkuser
1014:extension
962:checkuser
937:templates
514:WP:RENAME
82:Archive 9
76:Archive 8
70:Archive 7
65:Archive 6
60:Archive 5
6297:MuZemike
6197:MuZemike
6137:MuZemike
5952:MuZemike
5925:jpgordon
5892:MuZemike
5698:contribs
5675:MuZemike
5644:contribs
5628:contribs
5612:contribs
5550:TFD for
5517:TYelliot
5329:Tiptoety
5291:Declined
5223:Problem?
5108:Thanks!
4835:Question
4763:Tiptoety
4710:Resolved
4604:Farhikht
4595:Resolved
4403:arbcom-l
4361:Spitfire
4128:Spitfire
4104:jpgordon
4029:FormerIP
4018:WP:RFC/U
3970:FormerIP
3956:Tiptoety
3914:FormerIP
3910:WP:RFC/U
3801:BigK HeX
3773:BigK HeX
3685:BigK HeX
3665:BigK HeX
3637:BigK HeX
3549:BigK HeX
3531:Spitfire
3491:MuZemike
3431:MuZemike
3418:MuZemike
3402:MuZemike
3379:MuZemike
3363:SPIclose
3293:Amalthea
3264:Archives
3186:MuZemike
3170:MuZemike
3126:Cheers,
3071:cnet.com
3035:contribs
2993:contribs
2969:jpgordon
2918:somebody
2767:WP:ABUSE
2744:contribs
2734:Benjiboi
2726:contribs
2712:contribs
2698:contribs
2647:MuZemike
2621:contribs
2607:contribs
2589:contribs
2575:contribs
2368:MuZemike
2169:jpgordon
2155:Tim Song
2130:jpgordon
2017:MuZemike
1895:Spitfire
1841:Tiptoety
1813:Spitfire
1732:Spitfire
1713:JohnInDC
1703:Spitfire
1638:JohnInDC
1576:Spitfire
1544:Amalthea
1502:Removal
1489:Spitfire
1476:;section
1415:The High
1369:The High
1357:Virginia
1334:Spitfire
1282:Amalthea
1274:contribs
1264:Nixeagle
1260:contribs
1122:Spitfire
1018:MuZemike
997:WP:ABUSE
932:SPIclose
868:Spitfire
866:for you
808:Spitfire
762:MuZemike
732:MuZemike
613:MuZemike
560:Immunize
550:Spitfire
495:Immunize
491:contribs
477:contribs
452:Spitfire
449:MuZemike
419:A Nobody
306:. Best,
151:Scjessey
133:Scjessey
114:Scjessey
6237:system.
6168:WP:RFCU
6119:WP:BLPN
6115:WP:COIN
6062:CAT:UNB
5767:Sthenel
5487:WP:MEAT
5480:WT:SOCK
4933:WP:DENY
4450:Deskana
4044:support
4014:WP:RFCU
3989:without
3903:WP:RFCU
3759:Doc9871
3623:Doc9871
3390:Deskana
3115:obvious
2959:Zinbarg
2939:anybody
2801:--: -->
2345:CHRONOS
2320:Request
1948:Deskana
1518:Symonds
1455:Symonds
1057:checked
1042:request
974:Twinkle
579:Bubba73
388:Diannaa
350:Symonds
313:Symonds
103:IP only
39:archive
6181:WP:ANI
6164:WP:SSP
6151:WP:SPI
6123:WP:SPI
6111:WP:ANI
6073:WP:SPI
6069:WP:SPI
6032:jasepl
5979:DQ.alt
5874:WP:ANI
5817:minnow
5536:wiooiw
5439:Risker
5117:Banana
5111:Active
5071:Banana
5065:Active
4619:wiooiw
4453:(talk)
4446:WP:SPI
4346:wiooiw
4049:Jayron
3995:Jayron
3984:should
3965:page)?
3947:WP:SPI
3795:" or "
3659:" or "
3527:WP:SPI
3484:SPIcat
3462:SPIcat
3393:(talk)
3151:WP:RBI
3147:WP:SPI
3121:WP:SPI
3117:to me.
2846:lander
2775:WP:AFC
2771:WP:ACC
2716:Sfdrag
2714:) and
2541:lockid
2183:TerryE
2114:TerryE
2015:out. –
1951:(talk)
1484:======
888:Jc3s5h
845:Jc3s5h
716:TerryE
331:J Greb
289:J Greb
275:no way
229:Durova
182:Durova
147:WP:ANI
129:WP:ANI
109:WP:SPI
6185:WP:AN
6117:, or
5837:Fixed
5796:Chzz
5321:never
5200:. --
4958:dαlus
4921:dαlus
4758:cache
4740:Yworo
4738:bed.
4724:Yworo
4486:. --
4094:oops?
3251:JD554
3200:TFOWR
3156:TFOWR
3129:TFOWR
3109:I've
2811:MWOAP
2782:MWOAP
2451:today
2340:VTomi
2288:Amory
1864:with
1617:Sock
1515:Peter
1452:Peter
1424:Whale
1421:Sperm
1378:Whale
1375:Sperm
1323:scent
1318:iride
1313:think
881:using
820:SPEED
792:SPEED
645:Brexx
597:Drrll
347:Peter
310:Peter
281:never
270:tried
149:. --
16:<
6193:here
6189:here
6166:and
6036:talk
6028:This
6016:talk
5985:(t)
5967:talk
5938:talk
5909:(t)
5863:five
5845:talk
5824:TFOW
5771:talk
5742:TFOW
5716:logs
5692:talk
5669:See
5657:TFOW
5652:here
5638:talk
5622:talk
5606:talk
5586:talk
5567:talk
5557:See
5540:talk
5521:talk
5511:and
5495:talk
5457:Talk
5443:talk
5413:The
5394:(t)
5368:talk
5345:talk
5308:fold
5305:Hers
5265:(t)
5208:(t)
5187:talk
5098:Talk
5042:talk
5026:Talk
5004:TFOW
4978:talk
4941:talk
4882:talk
4846:talk
4826:talk
4808:Talk
4789:talk
4744:talk
4728:talk
4691:talk
4683:Here
4664:(t)
4643:(t)
4623:talk
4608:talk
4600:Here
4575:talk
4494:(t)
4471:Talk
4422:talk
4413:).
4395:here
4389:and
4350:talk
4323:talk
4287:talk
4258:here
4247:talk
4233:talk
4198:TFOW
4176:Talk
4154:TFOW
4072:talk
4033:talk
4027:. --
3974:talk
3937:talk
3918:talk
3912:? --
3883:here
3828:talk
3820:here
3805:talk
3777:talk
3763:talk
3689:talk
3669:talk
3641:talk
3627:talk
3553:talk
3517:talk
3475:and
3445:talk
3358:and
3353:RFCU
3332:talk
3317:talk
3274:talk
3255:talk
3232:talk
3195:read
3096:talk
3029:talk
2987:talk
2947:talk
2926:talk
2895:talk
2878:TALK
2841:Trey
2752:talk
2738:talk
2720:talk
2706:talk
2692:talk
2670:talk
2635:talk
2615:talk
2601:talk
2583:talk
2569:talk
2526:talk
2511:talk
2435:talk
2420:talk
2398:talk
2363:Done
2247:talk
2225:talk
2187:talk
2159:talk
2144:talk
2118:talk
2057:here
1935:Talk
1915:talk
1890:Done
1874:talk
1826:talk
1798:talk
1746:× 2)
1717:talk
1692:talk
1564:talk
1524:talk
1473:use:
1461:talk
1404:talk
1367:? --
1297:talk
1268:talk
1254:talk
1226:talk
1205:and
1197:The
1176:talk
1161:sock
1142:talk
1110:talk
1072:and
1067:RFPP
1001:here
995:and
984:here
955:This
943:and
927:and
922:RFCU
892:talk
849:talk
783:and
751:talk
720:talk
660:talk
652:here
627:Reyk
601:talk
564:talk
522:talk
499:talk
485:talk
471:talk
437:Talk
375:talk
356:talk
335:talk
319:talk
293:talk
250:talk
203:talk
155:talk
137:talk
118:talk
6254:Man
6218:Man
6195:. –
6101:Man
5991:(e)
5914:(e)
5673:. –
5594:).
5399:(e)
5381:or
5270:(e)
5244:Man
5213:(e)
5156:Man
4868:Man
4822:Avi
4785:Avi
4687:PBS
4669:(e)
4648:(e)
4499:(e)
4308:Man
4273:Man
3953:."
3949:: "
3859:Man
3712:Man
3576:Man
3427:top
3228:Kww
2806:--
2802:to
2495:not
2348:ome
2267:| (
2140:Kww
1418:Fin
1392:are
1372:Fin
1363:or
1353:3RR
1214:.
1077:AIV
826:).
798:).
714:--
656:Kww
634:YO!
107:Is
6244:TN
6208:TN
6183:,
6113:,
6091:TN
6038:)
6018:)
5969:)
5940:)
5923:--
5904:DQ
5847:)
5839:.
5819:}}
5815:{{
5802:►
5773:)
5739:.
5654:.
5569:)
5561:.
5542:)
5523:)
5497:)
5450:NW
5445:)
5389:DQ
5370:)
5347:)
5339:--
5260:DQ
5234:TN
5231:.
5203:DQ
5189:)
5181:--
5146:TN
5141:}}
5135:{{
5091:NW
5062:.
5044:)
5019:NW
4980:)
4953:Dæ
4943:)
4916:Dæ
4906:}}
4900:{{
4884:)
4858:TN
4848:)
4828:)
4801:NW
4791:)
4760:.
4746:)
4730:)
4722:.
4693:)
4659:DQ
4638:DQ
4625:)
4610:)
4577:)
4566:}}
4560:{{
4532:”
4525:“
4489:DQ
4464:NW
4424:)
4352:)
4325:)
4298:TN
4289:)
4263:TN
4249:)
4227:—
4169:NW
4074:)
4056:32
4035:)
4002:32
3992:--
3976:)
3939:)
3920:)
3849:TN
3830:)
3807:)
3779:)
3765:)
3733:ik
3724:Sh
3721:--
3702:TN
3691:)
3671:)
3643:)
3629:)
3597:ik
3588:Sh
3585:--
3566:TN
3555:)
3519:)
3487:}}
3481:{{
3465:}}
3459:{{
3447:)
3388:--
3374:.
3366:}}
3360:{{
3356:}}
3350:{{
3334:)
3319:)
3276:)
3257:)
3234:)
2949:)
2928:)
2897:)
2881:)
2870:AN
2773:,
2769:,
2754:)
2672:)
2664:--
2637:)
2629:--
2528:)
2504:--
2437:)
2422:)
2400:)
2390:--
2304:•
2298:•
2275:)
2271:-
2264:II
2249:)
2227:)
2219:-
2189:)
2161:)
2146:)
2120:)
2053:)
1928:NW
1917:)
1909:--
1876:)
1828:)
1800:)
1760:ik
1751:Sh
1719:)
1694:)
1566:)
1311:I
1299:)
1228:)
1220:-
1080:}}
1074:{{
1070:}}
1064:{{
965:}}
959:{{
953::
935:}}
929:{{
925:}}
919:{{
894:)
851:)
753:)
722:)
662:)
654:.—
603:)
583:,
566:)
524:)
501:)
430:NW
337:)
295:)
287:-
268:I
157:)
139:)
120:)
91:→
6249:X
6213:X
6175:.
6135:–
6096:X
6034:(
6014:(
5965:(
5950:–
5936:(
5843:(
5827:R
5769:(
5745:R
5736:)
5731:·
5725:·
5719:·
5713:·
5707:·
5701:·
5695:·
5690:(
5660:R
5646:)
5641:·
5636:(
5630:)
5625:·
5620:(
5614:)
5609:·
5604:(
5584:(
5565:(
5538:(
5519:(
5493:(
5460:)
5454:(
5441:(
5366:(
5343:(
5239:X
5185:(
5151:X
5123:(
5101:)
5095:(
5077:(
5040:(
5029:)
5023:(
5007:R
4976:(
4939:(
4880:(
4863:X
4844:(
4824:(
4811:)
4805:(
4787:(
4742:(
4726:(
4689:(
4621:(
4606:(
4573:(
4474:)
4468:(
4420:(
4348:(
4321:(
4303:X
4285:(
4268:X
4245:(
4231:(
4201:R
4179:)
4173:(
4157:R
4070:(
4031:(
3972:(
3935:(
3916:(
3890:ξ
3854:X
3826:(
3803:(
3791:"
3775:(
3761:(
3743:)
3737:(
3730:r
3727:i
3707:X
3687:(
3667:(
3655:"
3639:(
3625:(
3607:)
3601:(
3594:r
3591:i
3571:X
3551:(
3515:(
3443:(
3330:(
3315:(
3272:(
3253:(
3230:(
3182:'
3099:)
3093:(
3061:)
3056:·
3050:·
3044:·
3038:·
3032:·
3027:(
3019:)
3014:·
3008:·
3002:·
2996:·
2990:·
2985:(
2945:(
2924:(
2893:(
2875:(
2868:M
2864:T
2822:\
2814:|
2808:/
2793:\
2785:|
2779:/
2750:(
2741:·
2736:(
2723:·
2718:(
2709:·
2704:(
2695:·
2690:(
2668:(
2633:(
2623:)
2618:·
2613:(
2604:·
2599:(
2591:)
2586:·
2581:(
2572:·
2567:(
2539:E
2524:(
2509:(
2482::
2433:(
2418:(
2396:(
2366:–
2310:)
2307:c
2301:t
2295:u
2292:(
2273:c
2269:t
2245:(
2223:(
2185:(
2157:(
2142:(
2116:(
2063:7
2051:←
2049:(
2028:7
2005:7
1990:1
1987:i
1984:k
1981:s
1978:w
1975:o
1972:d
1969:a
1966:s
1963:B
1938:)
1932:(
1913:(
1872:(
1824:(
1796:(
1770:)
1764:(
1757:r
1754:i
1742:(
1715:(
1690:(
1686:.
1656:I
1644:I
1562:(
1527:)
1521:(
1464:)
1458:(
1406:)
1402:(
1295:(
1271:·
1266:(
1257:·
1252:(
1224:(
1178:)
1174:(
1144:)
1140:(
1112:)
1108:(
1094:]
1033:.
976:.
890:(
847:(
749:(
730:–
718:(
658:(
599:(
562:(
535:)
531:(
520:(
497:(
488:·
483:(
474:·
469:(
440:)
434:(
377:)
373:(
359:)
353:(
333:(
322:)
316:(
291:(
252:)
248:(
205:)
201:(
153:(
135:(
116:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
