User talk:DoRD/Archive 11

Thank you for your help
Thank you for your comments at Widr's talk page (about a user removing a chart of aircraft operated by an airline even though nearly all airline articles have them).

Wikipedia has a culture where bad people are powerful. Who wants to fight in an American Airlines article? I don't work for them and am not paid by them to improve the article so if there is too much trouble, one simply says "(expletive) it, I am doing something elee". A few months ago, I edited an astronomy article and someone said what I wrote was BS crap even though it was clearly very reasonable. That person was cautioned by an administrator and stopped. However, I have not had the desire to fight and re-edit that article.

So thanks and above was my commentary of things.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Alt account or troll?
I highly suspect this a troll but thought I'd ask: is this actually you?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I accidentally came to this (I rolled back accidentally via watchlist and self reverted) and on looking further I thought it was an imposter). I'm going to roll back the rest and block in a short while if I don't hear from you. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't block, this is actually my alt account. I'm on a weekend trip for my job and am only using my main account to run checks. Dudesonridingdudes (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * DoRD, I've blocked the account and rolled back all the edits. If in the remote likelihood of my not having analyzed this situation correctly (username, activity, above section from March 27 etc), please feel free to revert the damage and/or admonish me. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking the troll. Unfortunately, they created a number of accounts since the last rangeblock expired, but I think that it's sorted out for now. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Another not you?


Feel free to unblock if this is really an alternate account of yours. ;) Favonian (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blocking - I found a few others to block as well. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

More impersonation
It looks like there's yet another account impersonating you, namely. I've gone ahead reverted their edits at SPI, and reported them as a sockpuppet of the two previous ones. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (yawn) How original. Thanks for the heads-up and cleanup! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey buddy
I'm kinda new (sort of) to this site and know like nothing about "check User". Can you explain what it does and how? I'd be real interested in getting involved, you get me. 24.114.93.31 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Checkuser is the link you want. You have to first be an admin. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP and the recently deceased
I had a quick look at the policy and it doesn't mention it. I remove it after I become aware of the death a person that we have an article of as it no longer applies. That does not mean that our other policies relating to sourcing do not apply to people who have recently died. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, . I found it at WP:BDP, where it says, "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." But then it goes on to say, "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends," so perhaps it doesn't apply here since there is no question about the circumstances of his death. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I remove the tag as a general rule so that you don't have people with BLP tags on their articles years after they have passed on. That doesn't mean that general referencing rules do not apply. If death is not the time, it makes it difficult as there are probably hundreds of thousands of articles on living people and death seems to me to be the obvious time to do it on most occasions. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that definitely makes sense, so I'll leave the talk page alone now. Thanks for the explanation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster and DoRD, I'm late to the party, but will mention two things: Firstly, the BDP above states "this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources." If someone, anyone, merely adds a DOD to the article without further sourcing, I think the BLP=yes parameter should stay until sourced; secondly, regarding "other people" mentioned in the recently deceased's article, I refer you to the Blpo template, suitable for articles containing material on the deceased that also contains material about living persons, and suggest changing it to that. Note: this shouldn't apply to surviving family members, unless contentious. —  Wylie pedia  00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. I generally base removal of BLP after having seen reports in reliable sources either in news articles or entries listed on the deaths in 2016 page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also noted. Thanks to both of you for the helpful input. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding sock block
Regarding this block of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, I've looked at the SPI history of the suspected sockmaster account. In that, I found an IP that was duck-blocked, and it geolocates to the Houston, TX area. All of the disruptive IP edits at the Chris Kyle article and the Chris Kyle talk page have geolocated to the Houston, TX area, as well. When the IP disruption at the article and talk page was occurring, I had my suspicions that they were all sock IPs of PVJ, before and after his edit warring block. This SPI for the sockmaster using an IP confirmed it for me, personally. My question is this: shouldn't the IPs at the Chris Kyle talk page and article be looked into and/or tagged as well? If so, do I leave that up to an SPI admin (since there was no SPI before blocking as a sock) or do I file an SPI myself? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I haven't really taken a detailed look at the Chris Kyle page or talk page, but I do see a blocked school address and some mobile IPs that geolocate to the Houston area. Generally, unless it is very clear that a particular static IP is being used by a sockmaster, I don't think that it's particularly useful to tag them as socks. Since these are shared addresses, they may be reverted and blocked for an appropriate length of time, but I wouldn't recommend tagging them. As far as an SPI case goes, I hadn't really considered filing one for this sock, but now that I think about it, I'll go ahead and file a case for the record. Feel free to add any IPs and/or evidence if you wish. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser Settings
Hi I want to use AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/ISSN with AutoWikiBrowser where shouls I set it? or where can i use it?Yamaha5 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I very rarely use AWB, and then for only simple tasks, so I couldn't even begin to answer your question. It appears, though, that you've found someone more capable of helping you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi DoRD, thanks for the RevDel, not sure if you saw it independently or found my IRC report, but either way, I'm glad. Unfortunately, if you look further back over the last few days at still visible IP posts, you'll see there are more of the same that should go. Also, since it is a variable IP, is some sort of range block possible / appropriate? Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw the IRC message, and I thought that I had gone back far enough, but I didn't. I think that they're all taken care of now, but please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again... I wonder if this and this are the same person? EdChem (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably, but since it's a mobile IP, there's not a lot that can be done at this point. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
hello, i'm writing to you about a multiple-account user you blocked months ago who started over creating new fakes.

here's a list of a few of his previous accounts:



i didn't find all the fakes you blocked but you'll be able to check them all; i'm sure that the IP addresses he used before and uses now begin at least in some cases by one or more among 95, 87, 82, 80 and 79.

here's a list of a few of his new accounts:



this user continues creating throwaway accounts to delude others, so that he feels safe when he makes his edits: he creates a new account with a senseless name, makes his edit which as you can see consists of removing or corrupting phonetic transcriptions, then he abandons the account and creates another one when he moves to another page or comes back to an already edited page.

i hope that my report was helpful both for the vandalic nature of his edits and for the improper use of his multiple accounts, such a user should be kept an eye on and kept from going on with such disruptive edits that should be all reverted, he's just damaging the encyclopedia by behaving like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:f480:1:3::66 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 June 2016‎ (UTC)


 * I have not had a chance to look at this yet, but will do so when I get a chance. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

thank you DoRD.

here's another pair of fakes i've just found out:



it seems he's still creating new disposable accounts to make his disrputive edits, since the last one was created and used yesterday at 23:23.

at worst, if he doesn't stop playing like that with fakes as it's likely to happen, it might be necessary to block his IP range(s) too in order to prevent him from going on breaking rules like that.

update:

the guy has created new accounts and used also some old fakes sill to remove or corrput phonetic transcriptions, here's a few i've found but there certainly are lots more:



whenever you have time, please check the situation about this vandal who doesn't seem to be stopping.

(excuse me, when do you think you'll be able to have a look at this, if i can ask?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:F480:1:3:0:0:0:66 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but unfortunately, I'm too busy in real life to give this investigation the time it needs. I don't expect to be able to get to it before next week at the earliest. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus
Please get consensus for the change you made to Harassment. That text has been in the article a long time and therefore you need consensus to remove it. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not wish for the discussion to become fragmented, so I will continue on at the talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser help
Would you be willing to have a look at User talk:Atlan, where the editor is requesting IP block exemption to avoid an IP range block? The editor seems to be trustworthy as far as I can see, but I am not willing to consider granting IP block exemption without a CheckUser. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and granted their request. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan
Were you still planning on commenting? I placed it on hold a few days ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did intend to comment, but got busy and forgot about it. I'll get over to the case later today. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it took a bit longer than I intended, but I've commented and closed that section. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are things less blurry now? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thankfully. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Royer2356
Hi DoRD, take a look at the case, thanks. SA 13 Bro (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Tshavis socks
Hi. I see you checkuser-blocked. I don't know what led you to that IP, but its subjects (Vage Shavis, Donovan Shavis Born November 19) are those of a prolific socker for whom I have just raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tshavis. His socks are coming with increasing frequency - six this month so far. Is there any chance of a rangeblock? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they hopped to another ISP. I've posted CU results to the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Go!Mario
You blocked him for block evasion - is he a sock of a known puppeteer or just an IP Troll now acting with username? He has shifted activities to Commons and we need some info to block him there as well. --Denniss (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is just someone who doesn't have the maturity to contribute to the project in a meaningful way. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Denniss (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a minor heads up :-)
Hi DoRD, just wanted to let you know, just in case you haven't checked it yet; on this SPI page, where you performed a CU check, well, I've updated it ever since with more material, and added an additional one to the list. An evaluation of the evidence hasn't been made though ever since the time you made your first check and said that it has to be done. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Request To Recreate the Page KENNETH UWADI
Hi DoED, I seek to recreate the page KENNETH UWADI that you deleted in 2008. I want to recreate it with verifiable sources and I seek your permission Chiomaamadi (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other, and you don't need my permission, but be sure to adhere to WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:Notability (people). I suggest that you create it as a draft rather than directly as an article, though. Best of luck. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ejiro okosieme
Please stop modifying Ejiro Okosieme's page. I created the page, and some of the information on there is false. It is to be deleted Robertb11 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are placing a user talk page notice in the article. It does not belong there, so I will be removing it again sortly. You have already stated your position at the AfD, so leave it at that. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @DoRD: The page needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably true, but please let the deletion process run its course. Also, don't create, or have friends or family create any more accounts to tamper with the article. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How quickly can it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It will take approximately a week for the deletion discussion to conclude. Please see WP:AfD for details about the process. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. For the record he is born in 92. Not 94. That is wrong along with some other bits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please leave the date of birth as it is as it is causing confusion with his football. Nothing else will be tampered during the deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertb11 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Angusford22 -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, see my warning above. FWIW, Robertb is the actual master, as far as I can see. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cpsspag
Hello! I had a question for you regarding Sockpuppet investigations/Cpsspag. What exactly IS a "Check User"? Trying to learn and I was curious what would lead you to decline a check user request? Thanks in advance. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CheckUser and the top of WP:SPI. There are very strict rules for use of CheckUser, and we avoid using the tool when sockpuppetry is so obvious as in the case above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamerdude2000 socks?
Is there a sock investigation page for Gamerdude2000 et al? I have a few more accounts to add, based on. Ibadibam (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but I feel like there is already a related case somewhere, but I can't put my finger on it at the moment. At any rate, I've blocked those accounts along with a bunch more. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Libelous sock
DoRD and Thank you both for recently blocking a user here and here, for seriously abusive editing (now suppressed) that defamed a living person with wild accusations of serious crimes. The misconduct was just repeated under a new username, which seems likely to be a sock for the blocked account. Many thanks if you're able to take a look. —Patrug (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and I've taken care of what I can., you might want to have a look here as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn
Just blocked a fresh one per WP:DUCK. Is it useful to file an addendum to Sockpuppet_investigations/Billy_Hathorn (e.g., to pick up sleepers) for a single IP? OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything of interest on that range. I probably wouldn't bother, but feel free to add it to the case as a pro forma report if you like. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hathorn Redux
Not sure if this request is enough of a WP:DUCK to block. Your thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's enough for a block, but then again, I haven't had much dealing with this sockmaster. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Euclides of Megara
Hi DoRD. Page Euclid of Megara needs to be moved to Euclides of Megara to avoid confusion with Euclid the mathematician. Reasons and sources are listed at talk:Euclid of Megara.

Also, the disambiguation page Euclides (disambiguation) needs to be undeleted. For this dicussion, please see user_talk:Bkonrad. For Euclid, the relevance is not the obscure historical person but the mathematical iconic text Elements of Euclid. Euclides was Plato's close friend, and person, his philosophy, and his influence are what is of interest. The term "cut-and-paste" is deprecatory, "extract" is more appropriate. Euclides simply does not belong with Euclid's book or the many places and things named after Euclid.

The problem is that from my Plato scholar's perspective, this is an obvious factual naming mistake that needs correction. Current professional preference is for the spelling "Euclides". Since Wikipedia mirror sites and Wikipedia copycats amplify Wikipedia errors back onto the search engines, the confusion is perpetuated.

In my disagreement with Bkonrad, I was unaware that he is an administrator. I assumed that he was simply wrong. Now, on the talk page, it seems that a posse of admins are determined to squash the naming change in support of each other. This request is factual. I have verified this with the area editor of one of the two major online philosophy encyclopedias.

Nonetheless, it appears that my subject expertise will be discarded by the politics of the machinery. Perhaps that is one reason why there are only perhaps a handful competent editors in the philosophy areas of Wikipedia. How can the many less than acceptable articles in philosophy be improved if the experts are over-ruled by politics? BlueMist (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm not sure what you're asking for here, but in any case, I'm far from what one would consider to be knowledgeable about either the mathematician or the philosopher. I can only suggest that you continue your dialog with the others involved in the discussion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is a touchy topic for admins. Is there anyone with oversight authority or higher who is willing to address the systemic problem I suggest is destroying Wikipedia from within? In the philosophy section, which is all I am looking at, there are simple ways to make at least stepwise improvements to the system. Wikipedia should not be chasing away the few competent editors who are willing to devote time and effort to make improvements. BlueMist (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't find this to be a touchy topic at all because, to be honest, I have no interest in it. To answer your question, though: No, there are no admins with greater authority than any others. We're all volunteers who do this as unpaid extra jobs or hobbies. Besides continuing to discuss the situation, there are a number of options for dispute resolution, if you feel the need to take the matter further. I rarely participate in that aspect of the project, so I really don't have much more to offer in the way of advice. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your enlightening reply BlueMist (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Impostor?
Is this account yours? Maybe better write something on the userpage if is? [Bishzilla always extremely virtuous about any whiff of impersonation or other irregularity.] bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 21:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Yeah, it's just another creeper trollsock. Thanks for the note! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [Bishzilla is interested by the new and forceful term "creeper trollsock".] A bit like Darwinbish? bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 22:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Trollsocks are foot-covering clothes discarded by trolls from which tendrils creep forth to engulf the innocent and unwary in a search for food and ANIttention. These growths retreat from Zilla-breath but complete eradication often requires stronger measures, such as the patented weedkiller Bish's BanHammerusTM or generic equivalents.  EdChem (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hehe. ANIttention very good word! Clever little EdChem! bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC).

73.93.141.3


Well... in considering this block do you think that this IP is a proxy? MeowMoon (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I think that the IP I blocked with is a proxy? Is that what you're asking? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified this a little better... I saw that the 73.93 IP had rattacked your talkpage and was just curious since it was the only edit that they made, similarly to the IP that you blocked with . That's all... MeowMoon (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. No, that's not likely to be a proxy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

23 editor
G'day DoRD, I am very surprised to see 23 editor blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Are you absolutely certain that is the case? The supposed sock has no similarities with 23 editor's editing style that I can see. Not to say it isn't possible, but it seems pretty unlikely to me; I have been interacting with (and collaborating with) 23 editor for a couple of years now, and I am also familiar with the amount of socking that goes on in Balkan-land, and have never suspected 23 of it. Thanks for your time double-checking, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. I'm certain, but I welcome review of the block by other checkusers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, but thanks for confirming. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've declined the unblock request as the checkuser evidence is very straight forward in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and false reverts made by User:73.202.53.43
The abouve IP kept making false reverts and disruptive edits. I suspect the IP to be a sock puppet of either User:Janagewen or User:Intoronto1125. I'm not sure if it's any one of these. Can you please check? CrystalMania002 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Somebody's just upset because I disagreed with their allegations of a hoax. CrystalMania002, however, shows pretty sophisticated knowledge for a new user, unless they are themselves a sockpuppet. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To be honest you are making anonymous reverts which is clearly implausible. DoRD, can you please check if that IP is evading a block? CrystalMania002 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are anonymous reverts implausible? One doesn't need to have to be a registered user to edit WP. Your anti-IP editor bias is clear, and pretty laughable for somebody who's screen name is so new you're edits still show up as "New editors' contribs." 73.202.53.43 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And...CrystalMania002 is now blocked as another William Pina sockpuppet. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL - I'm not at all surprised that he's a bad apple. Thank you. 73.202.53.43 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the edit that was sent to you
Thank you very much for oversighting the edit I emailed. I was concerned about that person and what was going through their head to share personal info in Wikipedia. CyanoTex (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. For future reference, email is the most secure (and often quickest) way to deal with edits like that, however, you can also make a request in the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel as long as you don't post any links to the channel. Also, since we have an active local oversight team, stewards will almost never accept oversight requests for our project. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. I'll make sure to visit the revdel channel for any sensitive edits in the future. There were no stewards in the steward channel that were available to help me with the edit at the time. CyanoTex (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A question about an alternative account.
I see that User:69THFLOOR claims to be an alternative account of yours. Is that true? I wondered because of strange edits such as this one, where I find it hard to think of a good reason why you would do that, but maybe you have one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not my account. I don't know who it is - yet - but it's blocked and I've deleted the userpage. For future reference, if an account claims to be me, it can be safely blocked as an imposter. Thanks for the heads up! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * [Virtuously]: And if an account claims to be me, go right ahead and block it! I hate impostors!  darwin bish  BITE   ☠ </b> 15:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Will the real please stand up? Frankly, unless an administrator wants to devote the rest of their Wikipedia lives to blocking Bishonen's alternative accounts (for each one blocked, she creates two more), they'd be better off spending their time doing useful things like destroying articles or whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something similar, but didn't want to attract Bishzilla's wrath by saying anything about it. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does the Bish... family so often seem to turn up when something totally silly is going on? (By the way, DoRD, I am totally unsurprised but a little disappointed to learn that the account wasn't really you. I really didn't think it could be, and almost just blocked it, but I then developed a faint hope that you just might have some weird and interesting reason for doing the sort of thing the account did. It could have livened things up a little.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Sockpuppet investigations
Hi. As a french contributor, I'm not really familiar with the practices of the english Wikipedia. My message was only intended to inform you about inquiries on our project that could serve yours and reinforce the fight against vandalism. If you think so, don't hesitate to transfer it at the right place. Regards, --Voxhominis (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Malusia
He's also almost certainly this ., not that knowing this necessarily helps. Doug Weller talk 06:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) And User:You are unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. should they be tagged? Doug Weller talk 06:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer to not feed whoever this particular troll is, so WP:RBI is probably the best solution for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 07:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Doug Weller  talk 08:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshot possibly still at it
I suppose there would be no point in filing a formal SPI, because Oneshot is already indeffed, but check out this IP; it's continuing to harass SPECIFICO (a user with whom I have had many disagreements) after vandalizing Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration (which I recently made this minor edit to) in a way that indicates the quest to frame me goes on. Either way, the IP is clearly being used solely for vandalism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, I guess not. WhatIsMyIPAddress says the IP is from England. Any similarities are apparently purely coincidental. All the socking has made me paranoid.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another telltale indicator is the way the IP formatted the links it placed on SPECIFICO's talk page: [url | text]; Oneshot never used the |. Sorry to bother you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, then. Please report them to AIV if they continue the vandalism. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Filipz123
I missed one: can you please also revdelete this edit? indicated it's a copyvio but didn't say of what, but it pretty closely resembles this article. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the source I was referring to. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by a quick Google, the material added to Speleology by one of the other accounts is also largely copied verbatim from the cited source. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for pointing it out. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

SPI not updating
The list of cases hasn't been updating since sometime yesterday. I forget the various convoluted things that can be tried to fix it short of replacing it temporarily with the old one. Any ideas? I'm pinging others just in case someone else is around to help out:   --Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there's not much we can do until Amalthea restarts the bot task, so I've swapped the case lists for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...which reminds me to remind that her list still has edit links in it. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's never just restarting a bot ;) In this case SSL connection to the api fails, I'm guessing because of WP:VPT; I'll try and resolve it tonight ... Amalthea  18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Certificates updated, page is updated again, thanks for the ping! Amalthea  20:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The case list is not updating again. I tried to swap the lists until can fix it, but it didn't work. I don't know why.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you missed a comment close tag. I changed it, but now it looks like 's list is hitting a transclusion limit or something. I'm stepping away from the computer for a while, so feel free to revert me, or wait until one of the lists is working correctly, or whatever... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, well never mind. Her list hasn't been updated since October 14. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, this one was my fault: An exception thrown following where I missed that some pages won't have a last case editor, and that's pages in Category:Requests for checkuser, which now lists User talk:Vineetpl7. Sorry for that. :|  Amalthea  23:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue was completely different in the fact that I wrote the wrong directory for the script to run on (techie: forgot to remove a word for the dir in crontab) from when I fixed the last issue (transcluding headers), therefore the error was fatal. Now fixed. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you, too. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not updating again. Haven't tried swapping.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried, but the preview showed that Amanda's version is borked as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to see and...Amalthea's just updated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! I think us all wishing for it to be so made it happen. I now wish for the clock to strike 5pm and a nice cold pint to appear before my eyes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DoRD, I know this nothing to do with the updating, but thanks for fixing the quick checkuser request.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Shilpa Bhawana
You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting that, but I think we can wait to see if it happens again before revoking talk. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2605:e000:6201:1300::/64


Hello DoRD,

The IP is just the latest block evading vandal from the specified IP range above, who is continuing to vandalize numerous airport/aviation related articles.

Some IP's that are already blocked include and.

You may need to implement a rangeblock on which appears to be the newest IP range for them. Thanks! 2601:1C0:106:D137:1066:6939:3095:7968 (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The new range is now blocked. Thanks for the report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, maybe an admin like you has more tools, but when a regular editor like me needs to put a 4IM warning to a repeated vandal that looks "new", a "sock" tag is necessary to justify what I'm doing, refer anyone to previous IPs and their edit histories, and a quick visual on whether an IP is in the suspicious ranges (getting more difficult to glace with the advent of IPv6). The same vandal may continue for years to come. Pages like "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ___" is our only anchors of reference! I hope you understand. HkCaGu (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns, but tagging an IPv6 address as a sockpuppet of another IPv6 address isn't as helpful as you might think. At SPI, we almost never tag IPs as sockpuppets, particularly when it's clear that the person will almost certainly never use that address again. If these addresses really need tracking, a sockpuppetry case or an LTA page will prove to be more useful in the long run. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Password123
Hi DoRD. You recently blocked, an account that I recently reported as a possible sockpuppet. Can their contributions be reverted per WP:EVADE? Many thanks.- MrX 16:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Password123 is a technical match to, but I'm still trying to determine who 12 is, so I'll comment further when I have more info. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After some digging, I have filed an SPI for these accounts, but it wouldn't be appropriate to revert per EVADE until someone makes a positive connection through a behavioral comparison. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks again.- MrX 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Er, what?
"This is unhelpful, to say the least." What are you talking about? I was under the impression that I must notify any user I accuse of socking. Is that not a rule? Does that not apply to indeffed users? If so, that's news to me!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of your message, "You're not going to successfully frame me", was unnecessarily inflammatory, so I removed it. And no, it is not required, and it is often counterproductive, to give such notices. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? But you have to notify someone you report to ANI. If I took someone to SPI and declined to notify them, couldn't they rightly claim I failed to give them a chance to defend themselves? In any case, I am under the impression that you are already inclined to interpret anything I do as "inflammatory," because I've provided similar notifications to countless sockpuppeteers without it ever being an issue before. When I asked an User:Iloveandrea sock "How's Andrea?", was that also "needlessly inflammatory"? Where do you draw the line? To shield myself from charges of being "needlessly inflammatory", should I just never leave anything beyond a one-word "Notice"? Trust me: I have better things to do than attempt to antagonize an indeffed user that probably will never see anything I put on his talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. "You can notify the suspected accounts... Notification is courteous but isn’t mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal." ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives
Check out Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Ciaran olives. 2602:306:3357:BA0:1856:CD51:E7BC:9F20 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved the page per your request, but I didn't see much point in using CU. Thanks for the report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tool administrators
Do you know where I would find a list of "tool administrators" (see WP:ACCG)? If not, do you know who would? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * see here :) <font face="Verdana">&#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Does that mean the only tool administrators are the seven listed in the Admin category?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep <font face="Verdana">&#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  20:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At some point I may have to e-mail you, but we'll see how far we get. Is it possible for a user who doesn't have the ACC flag and is not registered to create accounts to nonetheless create an account for someone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A WP account? Or a tool account? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A WP account.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well yeah, anyone can create another account with Special:CreateAccount, and the admin toolset includes the accountcreator flag. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:CreateAccount appears to be an interface for a user to create an account for themselves. I'm talking about user A creating an account for user B.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:CreateAccount does that, too. Just put user B's desired username in, check the box labeled Use a temporary random password and send it to the specified email address, and put user B's email address in the email space. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have more questions, but I'll wear everyone out. At this point, DoRD, I'm going to e-mail you with what actually happened. Thanks, folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Thank you, and same to you, too! Stay warm - I'll have the air conditioner running all weekend, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oneshot socks
Can you do anything about these obvious Oneshot socks pushing to have me sanctioned, or do I need to file a formal SPI? TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

CU request (low priority)
Thanks in advance for your help. &#8209;&#8209;Dstone66 ⑆(talk)⑇(contribs)⑈ 16:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * On this day, 7 years ago...

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="SCOTW" style="background-color:#E6E6FA;border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;width:90%;float:center"> Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit day anniversary! Best wishes, Mz7 (talk) (23:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC))

Thanks to both of you! My first edit was actually a bit over 11 years ago, but who's counting? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI case regarding a long-term abuser
Happy New Years DoRD,

Could yolu please check Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc before the ips going to be "stale"? Also, I suggest you to take a look at the previous case too. Bests, 46.221.179.234 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding page move
I am curious. Considering the active links to Requests for adminship/ferret, would it not have been better to leave that page as a redirect? Thanks for your consideration.--John Cline (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't think about that, but having looked at a number of those pages, they all seem to transclude Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report, which updated to the new page title before I deleted the redirect. From the sample I looked at, I didn't see any obvious redlinks to the old RfA title, but I won't mind restoring the redirect if something is broken. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply. Your assessment was spot on; worthy of the esteem I have long-held in your Wikipedia contributions. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

RevDel
Hi DORD, Hope all is well, Could you (or any talkpage stalkers here) revdel this and this please, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, but since it fell within another policy's realm, this probably wasn't the best place to request it. Thanks for the report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thank you, Ah sorry I wasn't sure sure which was best, Anyway thanks again for your help, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Spi case
Why don't you (and others) check this case? : Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. I have shown many proofs with diffs. I hope you do not tell me that it is "stale". Because I have pinged many checkusers but nobody cared it, unfortunately. It is an ongoing vandalism,for at least 1-2 years. I hope you could stop it. 46.221.187.97 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, ; it would be nice, if you read the current and previous cases and do the necessary (range block for physical ips and indefinite block for proxies). Because it seems that the editor obviously not here to build an encylopedia. Kind regards. 46.221.187.97 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Well, it was not filed correctly, so it doesn't have the templates required for the SPI bots to see it and list it, so this is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps you should compare it to one of the open cases to see what is missing and make the necessary corrections. I've been busy all day today, so I'm not inclined to even look at it tonight, to be honest. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm..thanks. Actually i copied the previous case and just re-filed it. I did not open a new case, since i thought that it was not the first case regarding the same editor. Anyway, thank you. At least, you have explained the problem. 46.221.160.180 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The range block thing
Hi, DoRD. Re the range block thing on Widr's page: I get a big kick out of rangeblocking IPv6 ranges, because it's not what I expect of myself; usually my role is the helpless little old lady asking the techies for help while crocheting an antimacassar, kind of thing — but ha, I do rangeblocks! (And because it makes me feel useful. There's really not much point in blocking IPv6 addresses one by one.) My understanding of what I do is superficial, though, and I would like to improve it. So, a) how do you see what customer the /64 is assigned to (I didn't know, I just knew that it's 99% likely to be one customer) and b) how did you find the blocked single addresses? If you don't mind explaining these things, I'd appreciate it. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC).
 * I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but I've learned a few things through my CU work, and perhaps one of my more knowledgeable talk page stalkers will have something to add. Anyway, most traditional (cable, DSL, etc.) ISPs, particularly in North America, assign a /64 to each subscriber, so it's usually safe to assume that the range belongs to one residence or organization. However, for wireless ranges, the /64 rule of thumb doesn't hold true because devices can be assigned nearly any address out of the full range belonging to the ISP. But you probably already knew that part. As for finding the single blocks, I ran a check of the range to see if there were any accounts on it (there weren't) and noticed the existing blocks. The CU results also helped me to determine that the range was one subscriber because the user agent strings were all pretty much the same. The blocked addresses could probably have been found by clicking on each IP's contributions in the list, too, but that route would be a bit unwieldy in cases where the address changes frequently. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I hate it when they turn out to be on mobile ISPs. So that's basically CU stuff? OK. Thanks very much. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC).

My talkpage brouhaha
Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm assuming that these are OSOW and TTAAC going at one another, and I'm seeing this sort of behavior across multiple articles. Is the answer here to just RBI? Thanks, GABgab 23:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a rather unfortunate situation, sadly. OSOW may have made some useful contributions, but in the end, is little more than a troll, and RBI is going to be my response when I see him. I'm disappointed that TTAAC has resorted to socking, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well. After looking at the available evidence, GAB, it appears that I jumped to conclusions, because it seems that is an ongoing victim of a OSOW joe job. My apologies, TTAAC. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I vaguely wondered if this was the case, and I'm deeply sorry that I jumped to conclusions here. GABgab 23:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should have the same level of protection as, another related article.
Dear DoRD,

I think that the article page Melania Trump, should have the same protection level as the article page Donald Trump. I am not a newbie, but am sorta new to Wikipedia, (read a few Wikipedia rules while I was off from editing for 6 months). I was surprised by a blue lock that I have never seen before on any article, and clicked on it. I learned about the "Extended Enhanced page protection". However, when I went to Melania Trump's page, it was only a gray one, learned that it was semi-protected and less secured.& I think that it would be a good idea to put the same "Extended Enhanced  page protection" on Melania Trump's article, if one thinks about it, vandals and protesters,  would be able to attack there.

Also, the fact that she is a First Lady and the wife of the President of The United States of America, should be reasonable enough to conclude the need for a greater protection on the page. The reason why I think the blue lock was placed on Donald Trump's article, was that he is now the President of The United States.

Scincerly,

Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being familiar with that article myself, might I suggest that you make a request here instead? Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

184.96.131.81
Hi this user is continuing to troll on their user page after you blocked them. Saku ura Cart elet  Talk 19:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Handled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Mr. Nijwmsa Boro
Hi. I'm a sysop and 'crat on Incubator, and has applied to become a test administrator there. Would you mind sharing with me why he was indeffed? It seems like it was a checkuser issue, but I need to know if this will be a problem. You can reply here. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, the decision is up to you, but I wouldn't recommend giving any permissions to them. They have a history of creating many sockpuppet accounts to create numerous unencyclopedic articles here. See Sockpuppet investigations/Niezwmxa Boro/Archive for some of the evidence. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add that they consistently fail to communicate when approached about their editing problems. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was helpful. Thanks. I more or less told him "not yet, and beyond that you'll have to convince me". I suggested he continue to create content. (See incubator:I:RFTA.) Part of the problem is that none of us actually read Bodo, so we have little way to judge whether the content itself is legitimate or encyclopedic. But at least I can try to start looking for patterns of behavior a little. Again, thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was just following up with this and saw the Meta request for a new language project. The wording of the request seemed to be far above his usual English writing level, and to little surprise, I found that it was lifted wholesale from . Besides the other issues, copyright isn't a very strong point of his, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, uh ... was this just trolling?


I get weirded out when edits to my talk page get suppressed while I'm asleep, so I'm curious. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was some inappropriate trolling, but that's about all I can say about it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked IP address
DoRD, I noticed that you blocked an Amazon based IP editor not long ago, []. I've noticed that a large number of articles I've been involved with over the years were all of a sudden bothered by a series of Amazon IP editor starting in late 2016. I believe the editor behind the IP addresses is user HughD who was blocked for 6 months in June. I presented evidence that this was block evasion last December. Initially the evidence was inconclusive since we couldn't use checkuser on an IP address (the original IPs were all Chicago area based, then they switched to Amazon based). Later a number of the comments and phrasing were very similar to statements made by HughD. I've presented information here [] and here []. I would be interested in knowing why you decided to block that Amazon IP. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I blocked that entire range of addresses (52.60.0.0/16) because it is a web hosting range that can be used like an open proxy, and because the range was being abused by a troll (unrelated to the HughD case). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)