User talk:75.133.102.77

Talkback
- FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Myeuurn
If you continue to disrupt the above SPI, which you opened, you risk being blocked. Unless you are requested to do so by a member of the SPI team or an administrator, you should not edit the report any further.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, now: would you please, P-L-E-A-S-E, tell what the...I have to do in order to make my CU request acceptable?! You said checkusers can't disclose IPs: O.K. no problem, I've removed the IPs in the CU request (even if I wonder WHY do CU requests contemplate a "checkip" template if disclosing IPs is against policy, I must be really too stupid to understand...). What was wrong in a request concerning just 4 accounts and no IPs? Will you help me to understand, please? What must I do to request a CU on those accounts in order to verify whether or not the 2 blocked sockpuppets are related to the other 2 accounts and eventually others? Is my request definitively archived, forever, just because the 1st time I wrote it I made a formal error that you're preventing me from correcting? Is there no way anybody in the world from now on can request "that" chack because of this error of mine? Tell me, please, I'm not joking, I'm really begging you to PLEASE help me to understand what's the problem with my request and how to solve it, I must be much less smart and clever that I've been thinking till now... 75.133.102.77 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason they have a checkIP template is because IPs can still be evaluated behaviorally for socking. I should also add that the decline of a CU request doesn't mean the report is closed, just that a check can't/won't be run. So, your report is neither closed nor archived at the moment. When a clerk will evaluate it I can't tell you. As for your removal of the IPs, the decline of the CU with just the named accounts listed would be based on the fact that only one of the named accounts can be checked. The others are, meaning there is no CU data available. We rarely run checks of a single named account at SPI. Thus, you're actually better off with the IPs listed because there is more behavioral evidence to evaluate. You've now gotten more CU tutoring than I usually provide, so please try to behave now and let the report run its course. And don't complain if takes "too long". I don't dictate the order in which clerks evaluate reports.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you very much for your exhaustive answer! If I'm a bit insisting is because I know there's a 90 days deadline for checks, and one of the suspected sockpuppets made his last edit in May (the one who did it just 2 minutes later that one of the blocked proxies, in both cases maing identical edits to a long-term abuser's, as I've explained: it's manifest that it's always the same person, a check shouldn't even be needed to block him). I have another question: if a user wanted to request a check about a certain IP or IP range, which was used by already blocked vandals, in order to verify the presence or absence of any other accounts related to the blocked ones, what would be the correct syntax of a CU request? Including the IPs or IP ranges, or just indicating the name of the already blocked account(s) and letting checkusers investigate all the IP(s) which have been used by them? Let me know, please. 75.133.102.77 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please try to be more patient. My time the last few days has been very limited because of real-life issues. I have your Talk page on my watchlist, so I'm aware of your posts here, but I may not always be able to get back to you quickly. It doesn't matter if a named account goes stale in this instance because I'm not checking the account anyway. Also, we don't normally push things through faster just because an account may go stale or because the filer thinks it should be for other reasons. I've already answered your last question. You can't do what you're asking because the IPs of named accounts can't be disclosed. You must have at least two named accounts that are not stale for them to checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've understood, sorry for being insistent. I won't continue asking for this check, I just hope that a clerk would verity at least the other suspected sockpuppet's logs. But I don't think what you said is totally correct: I know about a similar case where all the accounts created from a certain IP range were globally blocked when a checkuser controlled, on his own initiative, all the users whose logs were related to that IP range, because a vandal were using 2 different names in 2 different project but it was clear that it was always the same person; the strange thing is that also the other accounts that hadn't been used for vandalisms and that hadn't been used during the previous 2 months were detected and globally blocked by the checkuser... Perhaps this difference just depends on the single checkuser's interest in a specific case. 75.133.102.77 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. So far 10 days have passed but nothing happened yet. I'd like you to consider seriously this check. I've tried having a look to your block logs: for example, you've blocked a user named Wizzmoalim whose only edits were made in May, another one named Rovens28 who'd never ever edited, plus 3 proxies probably related to 3 users you've blocked a few minutes after that, but these exaples aren't the only ones I could write. How come you've done that, in some cases all by yourself and without reports or requests, but you can't check the identities I've told you? It's absolutely senseless, do you get it? Some of the users you blocked hadn't done recent vandalisms, not even recent edits, but were certainly sockpuppets and some of them even used proxies... Exactly like the 2 users I've reported in my request, 2 certain sockpuppets belonging to an already globally blocked long-term abuser, who "did" use open proxies which now are globally blocked too. Why? You've investigated all by yourself some of those users you blocked, why can't you investigate these users I told you about? It's the same thing, do you understand? The same thing. The "one" difference is that I'm offering to you on a silver plate all the information, including differences, you'd had to search by yourself if I hadn't had. Which is the reason why you don't want to check, if it's another user asking? 75.133.102.77 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of doing anything further at that SPI except maybe close it if it stays open too long without action by a clerk. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop contacting me on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Just 3 things. Are you a clerk? If you are, shouldn't it be your duty to use the powers vested in you to investigate? If you aren't, can you tell me where I can find a list of the active clerks? Last but most, may you at least read what I've written above and reply to that, please? I won't disturb you any longer if you just answer these questions, this is a promise. Thank you. 75.133.102.77 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

ping
Your repeated use of ping to send notifications to is approaching harassment, especially since they have specifically requested (just above) that you stop contacting them about the SPI. Stop abusing this feature or I will request that you be blocked (although Bbb23 has that capability themselves if they become sufficiently annoyed).  General Ization Talk 