User talk:DoRD/Archive 5

TrippingHippy
Hello, DoRD! You blocked per checkuserblock-account and he is now requesting that block be lifted. Your input on his talk page and any information you can provide/confirm would be appreciated. Thanks! -- auburn pilot  talk  21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's another sock of this serial sockpuppeteer. That account and a bunch of others have used the same (now blocked) open proxies to evade his ban. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ip block exemption
You removed my ip block exemption last month and I not really sure why. I frequently edit from a public library system which has nearly 30 separate branches and is constantly being blocked for one reason or another. I was just fine and everything was working out great until you removed it. I shouldn't have to reapply for block exemption every month. Please can you put this back. I was very frustrated to find out I couldn't edit last week. JOJ Hutton  17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - At the time I removed it, the banned user that keeps causing autoblocks was inactive. Unfortunately, they have recently resumed their disruption. I have restored your IPBE, and apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you JOJ Hutton  17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

IP editor
This user has been vandalizing Por Ella Soy Eva and Corona de lágrimas (2012 telenovela). (s)he thinks that the former didn't win Best Telenovela while the latter did, even though the source provided states that PESE did in fact win Best Telenovela while CDL didn't. I've warned him 3 times, yet (s)he continues to revert my edits. Platinum Star (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now this vandal is using another IP address and claims that CDL won Best Telenovela when in fact that info is incorrect. These three sources confirm that PESE won that award. I can't do much anymore as I don't want to violate the 3-revert rule. Warnings given out weren't enough in this case. Platinum Star (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I apologize for the delay in responding, but I'm not familiar at all with this subject and I haven't had time to look into the matter. Now that I've looked at the articles' histories, I see that they have been semi protected by another admin. Hopefully, that will help solve the problem. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Block
Hello there! Just wanted to know why Archangel Shemjaza was blocked. Regards, (give me a TB) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That account is a sockpuppet of a banned user. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock advice
Thanks for rapid attention to The Deadly TV series SPI. I'm disappointed, I did think he had stopped, but it seems he has simply dropped the particular names I was using for searches. The name "Jaybias farts allot" suggests his little friends are joining in.

On another matter: please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive795, about floods of genre-war vandalism. I did a 3-day rangeblock of 46.159.0.0/16 which expires at 22:25 tonight, but Idid not like to do a longer block of so large a range, and would like your advice about a longer block if the nuisance re-starts. I cannot make the contributions search for a range work, for some reason: I have the gadget enabled, and have tried both 46.159.0.0/16 and 46.159.*.* in the search box with no result. The addresses given are at Krasnodar in Russia, so collateral damage on en:wp would be less than if it was an English-speaking country. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This link returns results for me, but I've had issues with the gadget at times, too. Anyway, CU tells me that the majority of the anon edits on that range are from the genre-warring editor, with only a few edits by other anons. In my opinion, the collateral damage from the block is minimal, so if it needs to be extended, you should feel free to do so. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes, I agree that there is probably at least one other person messing around on The Deadly's device and Internet connection. All the same, I'll continue to block them as I find them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Badbuu1000
Hello. I noticed that you have blocked User:Alexander585. I would like to ask whether it is worthy to open an SPI case against a new user (Badbuu1000) whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet of Alexander585. The editing pattern of the two users seems to be the same. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only confirmed and tagged the account - they were blocked by another admin. But yes, if you don't mind, please do file a case for the record. I am currently pressed for time, but hopefully someone else will have time to investigate. If not, I'll look at it tomorrow. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum
There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins.  It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which ).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have spammed this same message to some twenty administrators, I'm not inclined to act on this request. My talk page isn't the proper venue, anyway. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AimalCool
Hi. You commented on this user's unblock request a few days back. I wondered if you wanted to finish that up or if you'd like someone else to take it. Thanks. Danger High voltage! 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. Actually, I would prefer that another admin look at it from a non-CU point of view. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, DoRD. AimalCool has requested the unblock in person. He's unable to reply on your talk because of the block and it's been over a week. Just to avoid any confusion, we share one IP address, hence the CheckUser results. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

XFF project
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48791 &mdash;Kww(talk) 17:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Mangoeater sockpuppet Bardsteem
It looks like Mangoeater is back again: User:Bardsteem. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's him alright. Kuru blocked that account and another sock. I really wanted to avoid blocking his university again, but unfortunately, his disruption has made it necessary. Thanks for alerting me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Department. What do you think of -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's him. I blocked that and two other accounts. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops...I meant to reply that it was him again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock-puppet
Hello! I noticed that your an admin. I suspected this User:Vladismeer is using a lot of accounts, User:KylaDee, User:Khelty, User:Entertainmentph. The editing pattern of the seems to be the same. He/she made multiple accounts to make it look like someone is agreeing/defending his edits. He keep on insisting very false information and adding original info. I'm not that much knowledgeable on what to do with this case, so I reported it to an expert or admin. like you to with this kind of matter. :D Thank You!--Merida08 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay in responding. If you have evidence that the user is operating multiple accounts against policy, please file a report at WP:SPI. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

More sockpuppets
Hi. You commented here about User:ExcuseMeNYC and the range block of their IPs. User:Diannaa blocked the range for a week on 3 June. Can you see if the newly created obvious sock User:Brathford6602 is editing from the same range? If so, how were they able to edit..? Doesn't the range block extend to name accounts? Can the blocks be improved in some way, to stop the person creating new socks? Or make it a little harder, at least. (I have a fair idea of who the real person may be, and I don't believe they're any more technically savvy than I am. Or maybe a little. Most people are, a little.) Bishonen &#124; talk 22:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Update: Brathford6602 has appealed their block, denying the sockpuppet charge. JpGordon has run a checkuser and found a match between ExcuseMeNYC and Brathford6602. Glad to hear it, but does the IP range block come into this in any way? Should I ask JpGordon, or can you take care of it? Bishonen &#124; talk 00:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Sorry, Bishonen, I am stuck using a mobile device for the next day or so, so I can't really do any checks at the moment. I will be back on a proper computer some time Sunday, but if you feel that this is more urgent, please feel free to enlist another CU. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bishonen. I ran a check on the new account and found that it was created on a mobile network, and then it moved on to edit on the blocked range. I don't think that a block on the mobile range will be feasible, though. If the problem continues, though, I can certainly try to figure something out. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it in your capable hands. (I bet you like hearing that, snicker.) Addendum: since they're only interested in a limited number of articles, don't put a lot of work into this. I'll watch the articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Here's another obvious sock of ExcuseMeNYC: . If they used the same method as Brathford6602, maybe you could check out the possibilities of blocking the mobile range? No hurry, but it doesn't exactly seem to be stopping. Another question: could you check if, who you recently reverted on this page, is also the same? See contributions. In that case, I was thinking maybe ExcuseMe is giving up hope of editing the articles and focusing on expressing their (well-founded) frustration with me. But of course I'm not sure: there are other individuals, blocked or not, that I have disobliged. I do that, you do it, we all do it, it's what we're paid for. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Actually, Bishonen, I was mistaken when I wrote that the previous sock had edited from the blocked range. They (and MallyGirl) were editing from another IP apart from that range, but that has been taken care of now. Drodresu appears to be an unrelated troll. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. Have you extended Diannaa's original one-week range block, too, or don't you think that's needed? Incidentally, I went to the log to try to see what you'd done; man, you do a lot of blocking! Wham, krunch, thwack! You even blocked yourself once. :-) Bishonen &#124; talk 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Never mind most of what I wrote earlier. Apparently, my coffee had not taken hold yet, so I didn't realize that the rangeblock had already expired. I just went ahead and reblocked the range for a month. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. You can see MallyGirl actually admitting that ExcuseMeNYC and Brathford6602 were editing from the same computer. My little brother did it! It seems they reside in a 1970s office with one computer for, I quote, "many people". Bishonen &#124; talk 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC).

User:Winyviv
Hi, You recently blocked the above user. There is some curiosity as to whose sock he is, can you comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Airplane_question. here]? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I found that the user was the same as this user, but since they were using an open proxy, I couldn't tie them to any known sockmasters with any certainty. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking at your contributions I must say I am shocked how much time this eats up.  The work is appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

More spambots
Hi DoRD, could you check & block the underlying IP for User:Michol772 et al? As you can see by looking at the log for edit filter 527, this IP tried to create over 100 spambot accounts last night (but was stopped by the software at the usual 6 accounts). Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked an IP that had nothing but these spambot accounts on it. I spot-checked some of the other accounts (I don't particularly feel like opening 200+ browser tabs) in the filter log and saw that they weren't created, so I'm assuming that the rest were stopped. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RPP
Hi DoRD, could you help out there? There's a huge, huge backlog of 20-over articles, and some from yesterday are still unreviewed. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RPP really isn't my forte, and I've got my hands full with other stuff like tracking down spambots (see above), so you'd probably be better served by another admin. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam, spam, spam
Welcome back from your vacation. I hope you had a good one. Have you had a chance to look at the QuickSPI on the spammer I've been tracking? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a busy week so far, but I should get to them today. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅ for now. And, for anyone playing along at home, I did 60+ checks, most of which required no blocks. On the other hand, checks on one spambot account required me to make 39 blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What a mess. Sorry about wearing out your block button. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

They're back. =\ -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked several web hosting ranges, etc. and a pile of spambots. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh, more... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing more I can do with this group. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. Not a problem.  They're easy enough to spot and block.  Thanks for all of the help with these spammers. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

please see User_talk:DeltaQuad
I have no idea what's going on here, so I thought I better ask. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Essay
After a question on my talk page, I started User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sockpuppets with the goal of making a plain english "how to" guide for regular editors. The goal is to keep it simple, show them how and when to strike, and what NOT to do as much as what to do. You are pretty good at this stuff, and your input would be appreciated. I would like to move to meta-space (maybe WP:SOCKFIX or similar) after it is usable, something we can link sometimes when needed after a block to help the editors understand what they should and shouldn't do. Mainly for striking and to discourage random tagging. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Dennis, I'll have a read through it some time tomorrow, I think, but we do have a busy day planned, so it may be Monday before I actually get to it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I figure it will take a couple of weeks to get it up to speed. I think it will help keep from explaining the same thing over and over for us lowly clerks.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 04:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good for a start, but I left a couple of comments on the talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock account
I represent a company that provides solutions for farmers and their problems with crop diseases and other related issues. There is not a promotional or sales side to why we would like to create this page, it's simply to help link fungicides to our page. It has been seen with other competitor products and we would like to add to the list of options that the views of Wikipedia can access. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.247.190 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)‎
 * Okay, from your message, I am assuming that you are referring to the following accounts that I recently blocked:
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, from your IP address, I see that you represent Padilla Speer Beardsley, a public relations firm. With that, please see our conflict of interest guideline (particularly the section on paid editing), our policy regarding the use of multiple accounts, our user name policy and finally, the guide to appealing blocks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note
I've been working on User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets with the goal of moving into meta space soon. Basically a guide for newish users that covers the basics, written in a style any editor can understand. Your input on the page/talk page is welcomed. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't say? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh me. I forgot.  I had gotten it to the point that I decided to notify all the "important" people, but forgot you were also in the "really important people" list ;-) Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  14:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * surely you of all people can appreciate a duplicate notification? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Touché. :D ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Duniyaduniya
DoRD, could you please take a look at User:Duniyaduniya, from a Checkuser perspective? I am fairly certain this is the same person as User:JohnnyOrgseed, based on the fact that they uploaded the same sets of images and are edit warring them to add to articles (see, for example, the history of Aztec). The reason I'm asking here is because you block JohnyyOrgseed as a checkuser block, but there's no indication of who the master is. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I found JohnnyOrgseed, who you originally blocked for copyvios, when I was looking at the unblock request at User talk:FelizTerminaciones. The following are all ✅ as the same:
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that there is any older master account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on 2 haze articles
Hi DoRD, you are invited to participate in this discussion. Please note that participation is optional and the discussion closes at 12:15am sharp tonight (GMT+8). Cheers. -- Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Isaacsirup
I'm a bit confused as to how answer the last question by this account. I read the checkuser block section, and it seems to indicate that a user cannot appeal. An administrator has to first question the block and then follow the process outlined in the section. Is that correct, or could the user simply e-mail an appeal to arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think in general, if an admin thinks the block is an error, he asks the CU (or other CU if needed), although that is very rare since CU blocks are made using information that the admin can not possibly have access to. Usually, the editor just needs to go directly to that email address or WP:BASC.   Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In a situation such as this, I usually send users to WP:BASC, but there really isn't any ambiguity in the CU data (or much of the behavior) for this account. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope you a had a good breakfast. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 * User talk:Isaacsirup

Just some comments about him and the block. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 02:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have less doubt about the identification of this account than I have about what I'm going to eat for breakfast tomorrow. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently reading Mango's LTA report. I will go check that user again, and tell you my rethinked opinion in a few minutes (just FYI). Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 03:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll, and one look at the diff and I'd consider it a . --Rschen7754 03:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Will rate the chances of being a sock as 30-70. He could be from India, as I see he edited many, many articles related to Indian celebrities before that. He probably came across the article, thought it was right and constructive, and reverted it, not knowing it was made by a sock. But as mentioned above, I'm still a little suspicious. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 03:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can tell you this: He is most definitely not editing from India. However, for privacy reasons, I can't tell you much more other than that you are trying to make a judgement with less than half the information that I have available to me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not asking further, but I will only say that I will believe the CheckUser, since he has more than 50% of the evidence that I have. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 03:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser request
Hey, DoRD! Could you assist me with the request I made of Alison at User talk:Alison? It seems she's too busy to respond. Following a block on a range belonging to USF, one of their network guys contacted me and we've been working to eliminate the disruption on their end. Per their request, I need to be able to pass along the IP used by the most recent sock puppet (Biggerandbetterthings) so they can take the next step. I'm not familiar with the correct procedure in obtaining this information but believe it is a valid request per CheckUser #4, bullet point 2. Thanks! -- auburn pilot  talk  00:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I delayed answering because I've never had a request like this and I wanted a clarification of the policies. As it turns out, neither the latest sockpuppet, nor the possible sock, were editing from USF, so I doubt that the information would be useful to your contact. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even delayed, your response is much appreciated and is more than I've received elsewhere. Thanks for taking the time to look into the issue! I will pass this along so USF is aware. Best, -- auburn pilot  talk  17:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Pams Ale House
You recently blocked with a checkuser block. I just tagged as a suspected sock of PAH, but it appears that PAH is not the sock master. Can you take a look and change my tag as/if appropriate? Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't say at the moment, but these two are the same as several other troll accounts that have been blocked recently. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another you?
Is the recently created an alternative account of yours? If not, and they don't put in a username change request within 24 hours, feel free to block them if no one else has. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's just another trolling sockpuppet - blocked and globally locked now ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am astonished
I am astonished to see that I am accused of being a sockpuppet and blocked. I am even outraged because I feel humiliated with this accusation. An accusation of being "user Brunodam" without proof, even if I offered to submit my personal data. I demand justice. I am going to complain to the "Better Business Bureau of Florida" and to the Police department of Fort Lauderdale, following instructions from my attorney about this clear case of harassment & offense. I will ask for damages. Junior5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.252.98 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nihar socks
I'm not sure if you're still looking at the SPI since you marked it completed, so I'm mentioning this here too. There's a whole bunch of Niharshah* and Niharsms* accounts, some of which aren't blocked. Are those separate, or did they just get missed? --71.199.125.210 (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I only see a few accounts that might be the same person, but they either didn't turn up in my sweeps, or they are too old (and unused) to be of much concern. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I did just find one additional account to block... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hi DoRD I am picking a few random names from editors who have helped me in the past, hoping that one or more might be around for a quick reply. I seem to have read somewhere that it is against policy to solicit others to join an action. At the same time I have often seen notifications of the type "because you have been involved with this article, we would like to let you know that ..." or something along those lines. Specifically, is it ok/ not ok to solicit others to go vote on a deletion vote? Much appreciated, regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have to see the actual message to give a solid opinion. In general, though, it is typically regarded as acceptable to give a neutrally-worded notification to a range of editors who have been involved with an article. It is unacceptable, on the other hand, to only notify editors who are likely to be sympathetic to one's views, or to word the message in a manner intended to influence the recipient. For more, please see Canvassing. I hope this helps. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, DoRD. It does answer my question. I did not want to cite the example so as to not make myself equally quilty of the same thing - it might look as if I were using a subterfuge to draw you to the deletion debate. The link you provided answers my questions. While I have your attention, if I suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet, what recourse do I have? Many thanks, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have specific evidence, i.e. diffs showing substantially similar edits, editing style or other behavior, feel free to file a report at WP:SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Have a great day. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

An idea
I hear you on stale accounts, but I wondered if a simple solution to this SPI handicap would be to record for posterity on our servers the first and last IPs an account used before becoming inactive. Perhaps there is some privacy related reason why this is not feasible, but it would solve the problem of not being able to tie a stale sockmaster to their newer socks. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a way for CheckUsers to store this sort of information, but it is typically only used for serious, long-term problems. Thanks for the idea, though. ;) Actually, it is possible to see previous checks in the logs, but it isn't very helpful in this instance, I'm afraid. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been almost continuously harassed for 13 months now, so to me this is a serious, long-term problem. Did you see the other account I listed? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ping
you've got mail MikeDS (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello MikeDS. For various reasons, particularly our Privacy policy, CheckUsers are limited in the type of information we are allowed to reveal, and in this case, there nothing more I can say. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

John from Alcoa
I get stalked by sockpuppets not infrequently, so I was...intrigued?...to see that you'd imposed a CU block without any report. Is this another twig of the "deity condemns homosexuality" tree, or a totally separate sockmaster? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * John from Alcoa was another incarnation of, and I often decide to not make an official report for trolling accounts like these. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean you'd done anything improper! I was just wondering whether this was the same person that had followed me randomly to revert me before. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just thought I'd explain my decision-making. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ctway
Based on his editing both here an on ruwiki, Ctway appears to at least know Russian fairly well. I was surprised too that in Feb he was blocked from an UK IP. I suppose he is moving between the two countries at times or something like that. Another possibility is that he may have recruited someone to repost that article on one of those Russian gun forums he frequents (and which he frequently links in articles here, usually forum.guns.ru) Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say that this recent account isn't editing from either of those locations, so perhaps travel is the explanation for what we're seeing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Mangoeater
Hey, DoRD, is there a connection between Mangoeater (see and ) and  or ? This has all mushroomed because of my blocks of Untieailed and Anushka127 for edit warring at Aishwarya Rai Filmography. Anushka127 is making quite a fuss on their talk page, and I'm not familiar with Mangoeater other than by name. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The socking issue aside, I've indefinitely blocked Anushka127 for disruptive editing. I also think there's now more evidence that Untieailed may be a sock. His latesst comments on my talk page are disturbingly similar to those made by Dreamastir on their user page (about PAs).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , and  are ✅ Mangoeater1000 socks. Anaaaphid isn't a registered account, and I couldn't figure out who you meant there. Anushka127 is ❌ to the others. Mango usually edits NYU Poly-related articles, which is where most of his socks have been noticed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Poor Anushka127, although he really was a trial. It should be, sorry. Should I tag Untieailed?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may tag them if you wish, but at this point, it isn't really necessary. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tagged 'em all. I'm an obsessive documenter. :-) Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued sockpuppet activity
You cleverly detected the sockpuppetry last time around. The indf blocked user has since claimed to be active again and boasted not to have been caught, yet. There is a discussion that Humanpublic and Strangesad may now have exchanged passwords, given the similarity of the edits made from the Strangesad accounts to the lines of reasoning used by Humanpublic before and the editing style. A sleeper type check on these accounts may yet reveal something, in all likelihood. Not here anymore (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any technical connection between the two. Otherwise, I have nothing to report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hello DoRD, I'm convinced that I have found "another" Wiki_brah sock. Should I just post in the relevant SPI page, or can I post the evidence I have put together here? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In most cases, this one included, it is preferable to file an official SPI case so that it can be reviewed by the SPI clerks. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have posted at WP:SPI. Thank you, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock opinion for Kgarson
Hi, with just three edits before today, suddenly pops up and reverted two edits of mine, which were themselves reverts. My two reverts were per WP:SPEEDY "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag"; the creator was. Do you think there is sufficient evidence to file a WP:SPI connecting with ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd say that there certainly is sufficient evidence for a case. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank; filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Kgarson. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Back in March...
...you blocked a number of accounts at As'ad AbuKhalil (with an expiry time of indefinite (checkuserblock-account)). They're the red linked accounts in the page history. There is a new account, Bazinga139, doing exactly the same thing as the previous blocked accounts. Would you be able to have a look at it please ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm away from my computer, on a marginal mobile connection for the next few days. If you think that this can wait until Tuesday, I'll be glad to take a look. If it's more urgent, you will need to contact another CU. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. No rush. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Senencito
is appealing his block. I presume this account is the sockmaster for and, but that's not explicitly tagged or documented anywhere. Can you confirm so I can close out the request? Kuru  (talk)  00:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to revisit the CU data at the moment since I'm away from my computer for another couple of days, but from what I remember, there is almost certainly a connection between Senencito and LuisDOrtega2, et al. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've left him directions on how to contact checkusers directly and disposed of the request.  Kuru   (talk)  13:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

ElPilotoDi SPI
Hi. Just a note to let you know that I relisted Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi and was hoping for a few clarifications. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unorginal7 / HoshiNoKaabii2000 SPI rename/merge
Hi. I tried to move Sockpuppet investigations/Unorginal7 to Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000 per your request. I thought I handled everything correctly, but my watchlist shows an entry in the deletion log saying that you restored the target page at 22:30 UTC. I can't see anything in the HoshiNoKaabii2000 SPI page's history corresponding to this restore operation, though. I did check the HoshiNoKaabii2000 SPI page before doing the move, and it didn't appear to have anything of substance in it. Nevertheless, if I messed something up, I'd like to know what I did and understand how to avoid it happening again. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rich. Most of the time, merging SPI cases where the target already exists is pretty much the same as a simple WP:HISTMERGE, i.e. delete the target, move the source to the target and then restore the deleted revisions. Even though all the text ends up in the archive, we need to preserve the edit history of the main case page. Of course, if the target doesn't exist, a simple move will suffice. There are other situations where the merge is more complicated such as when there are two simultaneous cases with overlapping edits. I started to write a guide last year but it never went anywhere. :| ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, one other thing: If a CU check has been run, we typically like to old case name have the case header material (  ) or at least a redirect to the correct case so that we have working links in the CU log. If no check has been run, we normally move without leaving a redirect. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm probably going to need more practice with this. I still am pretty sure that when I looked at the old HoshiNoKaabii2000 SPI page (before moving Unorginal7 on top of it), I didn't see anything there except for the standard minimalist stuff you see when the previous contents of an SPI page have been archived.  Did you, in fact, see something more substantive that I apparently missed?  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This was in the history, but it was archived on September 1. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI reports
Understood! My apologies for working those the wrong way, I'll send them to AIV from now on, I just didn't want to "report complex abuse" to AIV, which I understand is a no-no, and worried issues like those I reported might have been viewed as such. Thanks for your time and attention! (also, I fixed my signature per your request) b e s i e g e d talk 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Being that both the reports I commented on were schoolkid-type vandalism, and most likely multiple kids in the computer lab or library, it isn't considered complex even though multiple IPs are in play. Thanks for your understanding. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind on previous statement... I have a question though: is it appropriate to report to SPI when a logged in account is making identical edits as two IP addresses that resolve as cellular service devices (ala iPad, smartphone, wireless hotspot, etc.)? I have a case of that in front of me now, but am not sure if, because I have determined the IP's to be mobile devices, this is appropriate for SPI, or if it should be written off as the user hopping between devices without remembering to log in and just ARV'd as a COI/3RR violation? b e s i e g e d talk 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If it appears that the user is simply forgetting to log in, the best action is to simply leave a note for them reminding them to log in before editing. However, if they're using the IPs in an improper manner, that would certainly be grounds for filing an SPI. (If it is really obvious, though, you can certainly take them straight to another venue if they're being disruptive.) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

AFC South Standings
I checked the URL you left, and stand corrected. What is the NFL looking at that ranks the Titans 2nd over Indy? Rlchambliss (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ricky. To be honest, I don't really know, but I assume that the net points factors into it. By the way, the page you linked in your edit summary was the potential playoff picture rather than the actual standings. This page mirrors the official NFL list. Thanks for your note - I intended to leave you a message, but you beat me to it. Cheers, and happy football watching! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was assuming the same. Happy football watching to you as well!Rlchambliss (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you were correct after all. Sorry for the confusion! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * hey man, its all good. Rlchambliss (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

, etc.
I am concerned by your blocks here to these 6 similarly named accounts. Why did you block the accounts immediately and without warning? And why did you prevent account creation if they were being blocked for their usernames? There are any number of good-faith reasons for similarly named accounts, including workshops and school groups. (Indeed, this was a library training workshop run by METRO). Because you blocked them in this way for no discernible reason, the library was no longer able to edit Wikipedia with the accounts or even create new accounts with more unique names. Dominic·t 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed these accounts in an edit filter log, and at first glance, they appeared to be role accounts, and I can only guess that I failed to deselect the checkboxes when I blocked them. The vast majority of the accounts I block are sockpuppets and spambots, which I almost always hardblock, so I'm not in the habit of changing the settings. I would certainly have moved to correct the situation if I'd known about it earlier. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion
You have deleted an IP user page[] that contained information that is currently involved an ANI dispute.[] The discussion involves harassment by editors of IP editors. I wasn't sure if you were aware of this involvement. Thank you. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I commented there yesterday and just a few moments ago. I saw no value in keeping the page, but if you prefer, I will restore it until after the dispute has been resolved. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that you were participating in the ANI discussion regarding this. I am not sure how important the edit I attempted to disclose I used a previous IP was. It seemed important after reading a lot of policies trying to do things right after my last go around in 2010. Just as a matter of interest most f my problems there were from administrators not identifying themselves and me not knowing how to ID them either. It just looked like a whole lot of created charges and attacks against me by random troll editors. Thanks. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

pixie dust
Re [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=576783492&oldid=576776616], how could you possibly know there's not a Trojan horse (computing) on the editor's computer? NE Ent 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Technical information indicates that only one user has ever had access to that account, and zombie herders have better things to do with their time than run Huggle through a backdoor on someone's computer. He wasn't hacked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I suppose that it is possible that someone else gained control of their computer, but it is exceedingly unlikely. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know, don't care, not the point. If a CU makes an absolute, unequivocal statement as a CU "based on technical evidence", it's needs to be true, cause when CU's post statements the technically savvy know are nonsense, it undermines the trust the community has in the process, especially if the "findings" are later overturned. Just be honest -- something like "technical evidence provides no indication than anyone other than editor Example used the account," would convey the same information. See also Fair Witness. Given the ANI thread has passed its expired date -- I'm not asking you to edit or amend your post, simply to refrain from similar phrasing in the future. NE Ent 11:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: What part of my statement is nonsense? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * CU can see more than just IP addresses (the browser user-agent for example). You can fake that info, but you can also kill someone and wear their skin. Ginsuloft (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:69.196.128.0
Hello DoRD! Question: How do I request it from my talk page? Thanks! ///Euro Car GT  13:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may simply place the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.196.128.0&oldid=580257022 same unblock request] on your user talk page. However, it occurs to me, that since you were able to edit the IP talk page and this talk page, you currently don't need IPBE. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much
By the way, this might be up your alley: Village_pump_(miscellaneous). I've gotten a couple emails about it recently. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 17:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the circumstances surrounding the block, but the applicable policy is here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The student emailed to say they were editing at a Starbucks so I guess that will explain things. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 18:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis


 * Now let's see if I can remember my previous votes ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That current SPI on me
Although our last interaction was not pleasant, I acknowledge your statement today: "Colton Cosmic typically signs his non-mainspace edits[2] - is there any evidence that these edits were made by Colton Cosmic? Please note that this is a shared IP." Here is what I just tried to respond there, in the block where it says "the accused party may comment here," but my response was blocked by a filter.


 * "This is me, the subject of this investigation. I came across this quite coincidentally. I was going over the list of administrators randomly (well, I decided on usernames beginning with "B") and clicked BOZ, and surprise here is BOZ saying I'm socking some AFDs. Those aren't me. I have never voted in an AFD. I am flabbergasted to realize I must say the words to a sockpuppet investigator "the same IP may be used by more than one person." Also you are supposed to notify the user you are making an SPI about. There is no notification at my talkpage. Also I never socked Wikipedia. I have made edits via IP while signing my username. I am falsely blocked, so this is justifiable block evasion. Colton Cosmic."

I would like to have this response, my defense, put at the SPI page, but I won't risk actually asking you because I've no reason to think you'll do it. Colton Cosmic.


 * I'll make a note of your comment at the SPI. However, there is no requirement to notify subjects of an SPI, and no, this is not "justifiable block evasion". Unless your block is properly appealed and overturned, you are not allowed to edit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you very much. The "proper" appeal avenues pointed out to me are A) go to BASC, where my blocker sits and refuses to recuse, and B) use UTRS, which fingerprints one's computer and makes the fingerprint available to numerous pseudonymous people (the other problem with UTRS is that it is technically-based but my block is not based on technical matters, it's rather an interpretive and thoroughly disingenuous policy argument). CC.


 * PS: If there's no practice of notifying the SPI targets, the "editor may defend himself here" fields at the investigation page are a bit ironic.


 * Re: your comments to Boz. It does seem implausible, and I neglected to say *why* I was going over the arbitrators list. I was doing so to pick an administrator to request an unblock. I chose the letter "B" randomly, and noticed Boz there. T-Boz is a singer in the group TLC that performed at the AMAs two days ago. So I clicked on Boz, and there he was reporting me. It does seem against the odds. CC. By the way, Dord, if you want to undertake to consider unblocking me, you can read my latest appeal "new evidence" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.37.22 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou
Hi, Thanks for your help on Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. I imagine that checkusering is mostly dull and thankless, so... I just want to say that it's appreciated. You rock. Although some of those accounts were quite active so I have a lot of cleanup to do! bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Cleaning up after prolific socks? Now that's a thankless job. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New life88
Now that you've blocked the sock accounts, can you see any reason for keeping Sockpuppet investigations/New life88/User YDP and Sockpuppet investigations/New life88/YDP? Both pages were validly deleted, and I restored them solely for the sake of non-admins participating in the SPI. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't block 'em, Elockid did before he commented at the ANI thread. ;) Anyway, no, there's probably no reason to keep those pages. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested Mark Arsten's opinion immediately after asking for yours (he was the last to edit the SPI), and since both of you thought that the pages were unneeded, I'll delete them in just a moment. Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI
You have completely altered the intent of my report. It is the IP who is clearly the originator. You have removed any reference to it. Leaky Caldron  13:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, when named accounts are involved, we almost never leave a report under an IP address, so I moved it to the oldest named account. Also, per the Privacy policy, a CU won't be able to speak to any connection between the named accounts and any IPs. I apologize for any confusion, but please feel free to reword the report to explain your intent. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just cannot see the point in a good faith editor taking the time to research and compile a detailed pile of evidence and present the case for investigation only for someone to come along and alter the entire premise for the case by replacing the suspected puppeteer with one of the socks. Kind of makes me look I bit inept. If we are not supposed to mention IPs then the reporting tool Twinkle needs to be changed. Leaky  Caldron  14:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IP addresses can change, as shown in your report, so we strongly discourage naming them as a sockmaster. You'll notice that the oldest account, BounceBounceBounce, was created on September 9, well before the earliest contribution of either IP address, and before any of the other accounts were created, hence my choice of that account as the suspected master. I'm not saying that you did anything wrong by filing the case as you did, but one of my tasks at SPI is to try to make cases as consistently formatted as possible. Thanks for your report. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick checkuser
Would you mind running a quick checkuser on Osarius? This is a WP:SPI situation, but I'm making it privately because I'm about to go on the road with family, and I'd like to respond to Osarius before I leave instead of waiting for someone to check the SPI page. Osarius has seemingly been caught in an autoblock, and I'm inclined to grant IPBE at his request; I just want to make sure that everything's clear to grant the right. Please leave me a talkback, and if I don't respond quickly (I don't know when I'm leaving; I'm not the driver), I'd appreciate it if you'd grant the right or deny the unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing that would disqualify Osarius for IPBE. Please make a note at WT:IPBE/log if you grant it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Weird: I didn't get any Notification, so I only saw this by hitting Refresh. Thanks for the help; I've unblocked and logged it.  Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is odd. Well, have a safe trip! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Giatharodaki is back
I am suspicious that giatharodaki has built a new account named Daki122,I request a checkuser,I am sure the account is a sock puppet.Alhanuty (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just filed a report about his new account Daki122.Alhanuty (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I'll take a look at the report later if someone else doesn't do something about it first. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The report has been out for three days and nobody is responding or using the checkuser to confirm that Daki122 is a sockpuppet.Alhanuty (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear! Hear!--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Autoblocked user - checkuser powers required
Hi DoRD. Would you mind taking a look at WilliamH's block of the 68.247.0.0/16 range here? I'm currently looking into an unblock request from User:Etonmessisthebest, who's caught in that particular rangeblock. Please could you amend the block to remove autoblock or grant him IP exemption if you deem it wise? Cheers, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I modified the block to allow logged-in users to edit, so they should be good to go now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)