User talk:DoRD/Archive 7

CU unblock request
DoRD, in reviewing an unblock request, I was unaware of the CU unblock policy and granted an unblock request beyond my authority at User talk:Stanleytux. I was made aware of my ill-informed actions by Ponyo on my talk page. I have reinstated the block and undone my subsequent actions as well as placed the unblock request in review status until you have a chance to look at it. I deeply apologize for any harm caused by my actions as the policy is quite clear. Regards, Mkdw talk 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for quickly reversing your action. I accept your apology, but it was a simple mistake, and no apology was necessary, really. I made that block while assisting with an investigation, so her opinion should be sought as well. That being said, the user's latest request seems sincere, but I'm not really that familiar with their case other than their use of multiple accounts to edit Slim Burna and related articles. At a minimum, they will need to list all of their accounts before being unblocked, and they will have to understand that they may be subject to periodic checks. I have no objections to giving them a second chance, but someone more familiar with their overall behavior should really make the call. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I do have a couple comments that may impact the unblock. First, the editing performed by the known socks were very promotional in nature, so much so that I'm almost convinced that this is either paid promotion of Nigerian hip-hop musicians or a manager/record label exec acting on their behalf. Second, although the request appears sincere it only came about when semi-protection of the target article made it impossible to continue to IP hop to continue evading the block. Finally, if you do want to provide some rope by unblocking they will need to at the very least provide a complete list of socks, adhere to editing via one account only (with no purposeful unidentified logged-out edits), and a commitment to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. I'm curious whether they would even want to edit if they were topic-banned from Nigerian hip-hop articles? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We may find that WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO will be difficult to enforce without a significant time commitment from someone to watch over it. Even then many users edit on the border of anything actionable which would be my concern. Do we have any reason to believe the IP's that have been locked out of the article are associated to this editor? I noticed today the editor supplied a list of socks. I think a topic-ban would need to be a last resort and even then would need a wider consensus to be applied than the three of us. I would only considering moving ahead with an unblock request approval or decline if we were all in agreement. I certainly won'y proceed if you have any reservations in terms of rope. In the short amount of time the editor was unblocked they did proceed very carefully and sought community input on their changes. Mkdw talk 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy new month Admin(s), thanks for accepting my request and giving me another chance. Regarding WP:PE, I want to make it clear that I have never and will never edit Wikipedia for monetary or any other forms of rewards or relationship reasons. I only edit articles if the subject is of interest to me. For instance, in the case of a musician probably I've heard his/her music or watched a live concert that fascinated me because that is what gives me the motivation to write about it and if it is notable and meets Wikipedia's guidelines. But since the issue has been brought up, you admins should also look into the case of the editor who identifies as a Liberian Citizen and not even a Nigerian nationality or residency on their well-decorated User Page yet has 90% Nigeria-related edits in their contribs history. At least, within the little time I've spent on the English Wikipedia, I've observed that about 95% (if not more) of editors have some sort of interest in their respective countries of citizenship. This I have not and do not see in this editor.


 * Also generally, I'm an editor who is mostly interested in Entertainment, especially music, I'm a fan of R&B, pop, soul, reggae, hip hop etc, so most times I create and edit articles related to music. And if I create an article about a particular subject and find out that I can also start/create articles related to that subject and if the subjects are notable and meet Wikipedia's guidelines I will definitely go on to create them. My reason for doing so is that creation of related articles makes the entire story I'm reporting on complete. Just like you can't give a complete account of former US president Bill Clinton's life and political career without talking about Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and others (see Book:Bill Clinton). So if I choose to write about a certain Nigerian musician who comes from a family where everyone including the subject's parents, spouse, children and musical partners are all notable, and meet guidelines to have a page on Wikipedia, I will definitely go ahead and create those articles unless there's a rule that states otherwise. Stanleytux (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the amount of sock accounts you have created on Wikipedia, you do not deserve to be editing here; that's just my personal opinion. You should be thankful to the editors who have exonerated you. I, unlike you, write about notable musicians; the musicians I write about are musicians that have won several awards in Nigeria and have been featured in notable newspapers such as The Punch, Premium Times, Vanguard and P.M. News to name a few. You, on other hand, write about up and coming and local musicians from the Port Harcourt area who haven't gotten the national or international recognition every notable musician ought to have. Moreover, these artists are not featured in the aforementioned newspapers and have not won none of the notable awards in Nigeria. They do not even get nominated. To make things worse, Slim Burna and other artists that you've written about have one or two thousand followers on Twitter. This shows that they are not known nationally. If they were popular, they would have hundred of thousands of Twitter followers and their music videos would have surpassed millions of views on YouTube. As far as I'm concern, all of your edits have been directed towards local musicians from the Port Harcourt area. Also, I can edit any article I want to edit. Just because one is from a different country doesn't mean they can't edit articles relating to another country. Don't bring that tribalistic stuff to Wikipedia. This is an open source environment and everyone from all walks of life are welcome here. Wikipedia is not the place for people who create multiple accounts and used that as means to justify their point of view. And please, try to write about notable musicians. Stop writing about musicians that are barely known in Nigeria. versace1608 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be very careful when placing accusations against other editors. Paid advocacy was brought up, but nothing actionable, was brought up with you considering the timing of the article locks, the huge number of sock puppet accounts, and your editing tendency. Basing anything on solely the percentile of edits and their nationality is no where close to legitimate grounds to single someone out with PE accusations or WP:SPI. Mkdw talk 07:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mkdw, I'm surprised that you are saying this, if you read what I wrote very well you will see that I never made any direct accusations to the editor, I'm even surprised they replied because that statement above really didnt't need a reply. Stanleytux (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They likely replied because you directly informed a number of sysops to investigate them for paid editing. "". That is clearly a direct accusation and I cannot see how you are surprised at their reaction or my comments. If this was not your intention then you should withdraw your suggestion that we investigate them. My response was to caution you. Mkdw talk 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies if the statement sounded like a direct accusation to the editor, you and the other admins, I was only suspicious of their wiki behavior and editing pattern, and asked that they be checked as well. But it's ok now I withdraw my suggestion. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!
Well, thank you for reverting his vandalism! The IP was being used by a well-known long-term vandal and sockpuppeteer. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

MlaneNYIT
Hi DoRD, could you give some insight into ? The user is asking for an unblock, and you were the one to block them based on checkuser evidence. Thanks, only (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I believed them to be a sockpuppet of, but according to their user page, they are an employee of NYIT. I will ask them to verify via their work email address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Monterrosa
Monterrosa is back again and I suspect a sleeper, asked for a CU, but my request is being rebuffed and dismissed without diffs. (link to SPI case here ) Haven't needed them in the past, why do we have to provide them this time? The guy is a serial sockmaster as we all know. Can something be done to move this along without diffs? Thanks for your help. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , that's not being rebuffed and dismissed, it is a clerk asking for diffs to justify a check, without which CUs will usually not run a check. You can't expect CUs and SPI clerks to be familiar with the "Same articles, same MO, same type of reverts", etc. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95 Trouble
Well, if this guy continues to circumvent blocks, then I think that we will need to take this to the Wikimedia Stewards. He's been causing a lot of damage to Wikipedia for at least 3 years now, and I would really like to see it stop without us having to block his accounts individually, or wait for the next sockpuppet to appear. I just want to see this stop, and if all of his accounts this year have originated from the same IP Range, the Stewards might be able to deal with that, since his edits certainly warrant their attention at this point (just like the time when a Steward got involved in July 2013). If they can't, then I don't know what we will do. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What would stewards do, though? --Rschen7754 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what would stewards do?, you do realize that stewards are volunteers just like everyone else here, yes? You do realize that, other than making global versions of the same blocks local admins/CUs can make, that there is not much that they can do in this situation, either? Mostly, do you realize that global blocks are likely to adversely affect even more people than local blocks? Please understand: Yes, this is a disruptive sockpuppeteer, but taken in perspective, he is a very small blip in the statistics. We have had, and still have, much more disruptive people to deal with - and - the range blocks you're asking for would be exponentially more damaging to the project than anything this vandal is capable of. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean that Wikipedia has seen much more destructive vandals? I wonder how they were dealt with. Anyhow, this sockmaster's disruptive edits are extremely agitating, and I think that it would do everyone a lot of good if we could find some way to stop him from continuing to sock. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From your lips to God's ears. If you do find some magick technique for blocking all disruptive socks whilst still allowing innocent folk to contribute I will personally start passing the hat around to collect donations to pay you handsomely for your discovery. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a checkuser or an admin, so I'm afraid I don't know how to do any of that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, just so you know, . ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Today I was elected as a steward. And I have to concur with what DoRD said above. --Rschen7754 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't magic. But they've still got to have a lot more leverage than most other users. And congrats, Rschen7754, on becoming a Steward. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this guy part of the IP Range that you mentioned? Even if it isn't, I recommend a rangeblock on this IP, in order to prevent further abuse. If this IP Range is extremely large or active, then multiple smaller blocks should suffice. Additionally, another admin has told me that they can trace IPv6 addresses to the user's computer, so hopefully we can trace this guy and block off IP Ranges that are specific to his electronics. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DoRD, I've blocked LightandDark2000 for 24 hours. See here for an explanation of the trigger. I don't know what to do to get them to stop with their obsession. The creation of a user page and tag for an IP that I just blocked for a week as a result of an SPI was the last straw. I've warned them repeatedly that they shouldn't be tagging anyone, but tagging an IP is ridiculous. Anyway, if you want to unblock them, you don't need to consult with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't have an opinion regarding the block at the moment, but tagging a mobile IPv6 address is pointless. The block on the IP is likely to be completely ineffective too, though, since mobile IPs change so rapidly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 06:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Using Geolocate on IPv4 addresses is somewhat helpful in determining what kind of IP it is. That helps me sometimes decide how long a block to apply. I have much more trouble with IPv6 addresses. Any guidance as to what tool(s) to use and what to look for?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The tools for IPv6 are certainly fewer and less developed than those for IPv4, but the WHOIS link on the talk/contribs pages for that address show that it belongs to Verizon Wireless. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that's why you said that a Rangeblock wouldn't be able to be used against such a range (as a whole). It's just fustration seeing what he's doing to articles and the crap he keeps putting on other user's pages. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Um... About his possible sleepers, have they been blocked (cause it sure seems like it)? He still seems to be causing a lot of ruckus every other day. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that you are busy but... If you find the time, could you please file a LTA Report for this guy, and link it on the SPI mainpage? I'm not familiar with that kind of stuff so I thought that I'd leave it to you. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about common sock user page content
Hey, since you're a CU and do a lot of SPI stuff, can you remember if there's any sockmasters who commonly create user pages with a single non-common character (such as "Â")? I seem to remember that there was at least one, but can't remember who it was; WP search can't seem to process that character either. My question is about an account created today by the name of "Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi" - I won't link to avoid the ping. Thanks, 6 an 6 sh 6 23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who it is, but the same person has apparently made a number of disruptive accounts recently, so I changed their block to indef. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. 6 an 6 sh 6 03:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yasir72.multan SPI
Hello DoRD. Related to this SPI, I was expecting another account to appear in the CU results, a very obvious one, but now that it didn't just wanted to know what could be the possible reasons (is it proxy or the other IP range, 182.186.x.x used by the sock apart from 119.160.x.x). I am actually talking about who has a lot in similar to  and other socks too but that didn't appear in last two CU checks. Can you please take a look at this or let me know if I need to file a formal case. Thanks -- S M S   Talk 20:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Picking sleepers/related accounts out of all the ones that come up in checks for his sock isn't always easy as I'm not entirely familiar with the behavior aspect. That being said, I think that Codswick did appear, but I'll take another look. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

D'oh!
MusicPoineer was on my sock list, but somehow I missed actually adding them to the report. Thanks for catching the ommission. Cheers,--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Monterrosa
Regarding this SPI and CU, will the named account be blocked any time soon? According to the notes at the SPI the named account (User:Arfwedson) is a confirmed sock but remains unblocked. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A clerk or patrolling admin will be around eventually to take action on the account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Spambots
A little group, likely on the same IP, if you're still around:

INeverCry  02:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:MikelDimond
 * User:Annabel4791
 * User:DalePabstllt
 * User:FelicaGZVN ‎
 * User:MagdaleCordero is another.  INeverCry   02:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Re our IRC chat
Hi, DoRD. Not to crowd you or anything, but did you get a chance to take a look at this mess? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Email sent. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible new sockmaster
Can you please help out on this SPI case? It's a really big mess, and it's giving me a headache just trying to sort it out. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I am traveling at the moment, and do not have the necessary tools for an involved investigation such as this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. Okay. Well, hopefully we'll have this all sorted out before the sockmaster can cause any further damage. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi?
Semi, perhaps? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Heh...I just did. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw, and was trying to remove my comment — there was no edit conflict, but you apparently "won". :-) Maybe that's what happens if two people edit exactly simultaneously, or something. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Depends on the two people. :-) Actually, I find it annoying when you don't conflict because of the timing of the two edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Another one
I blocked User:DoRDalternate. I don't have the ability to do a CU block, so I tagged them as "suspected". Feel free to do whatever you want with the tag, including removing it. Funny how they impersonate you and go after me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's him, of course, so I changed the tag. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

NYIT
Hi, thanks for keeping up with the sockpuppets editing NYIT. However, each day new socks are being created to make disruptive edits. Can the NYIT page be semi-protected to prevent new users from editing the page for the time being? MlaneNYIT (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, please disregard request as page is now semi-protected. MlaneNYIT (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sadly, it does appear to be necessary. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again for the vigilance in keeping up with our persistent 'companion'. MlaneNYIT (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention
Hi User:DoRD,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with 's reasoning, but if you disagree, please contact him rather than canvassing uninvolved admins. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Abusive socks of IpH95
I understand that some of the following accounts are extremely abusive, but could you please tag them for the record (well, the ones that are confirmed)?
 * User:OopsIP14
 * User:OopsIP15
 * User:DoRD (person)
 * User:KaabiiNoHoshi (This account was checkuser blocked by Elockid very shortly after OopsIP14 was indef blocked)


 * Thanks LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And based on the continued abuse of other users (including both direct and indirect personal attacks), should a WP:LTA be opened for him? He's been actively socking since August 2011, and I highly doubt that he's going to stop anytime soon. The personal attacks have been quite hurtful to some of the users, and the rest are very concerning. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The last account you listed above must have a typo in the name because it is not a registered account. Anyway, in reply to this and the message below, they're all blocked, but I will not be tagging them because it is counterproductive. Likewise for the LTA page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that. The actual username was: KaabiiNoHoshi. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Help
Please help me. I think that User:Mr Wiki Pro supports Barack Obama is trolling me, because during four different days, he thanked me repetitively (49 times to be exact) for my edits to my Blocked section for no apparent reason, causing an "overload" in my notifications. I'm worried that he might be trolling me, and I don't know what to do. I don't like being abused by other users, and I'm hoping that you might have some solution to this problem? LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, User:Mr Wiki Pro did this using 4 different sock accounts:


 * User:DoRD (Mr Wiki Pr0)
 * User:DoRD's best friend is Mr Wiki Pro
 * User:Mr Wiki Pro LOLLOL
 * User:Mr Wiki Pro supports Barack Obama


 * You might want to tag these accounts, but that's entirely up to you. I think that we might need to get help from some other admins in order to stop his socking and his abuse of other users. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I understand that they're going to be left untagged. However, I would really appreciate it if someone could find someone to keep him from coming back and spamming our notification bars. It's extremely agitating. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He just spammed my talk page, using User:Mr Wiki Pro ( fan of Barack Obama). He also abused me by adding a template to my user page without my permission. Can you please rangeblock him for a month? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for blocking him. :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I have to ask again: What part of "do not edit SPI archives" do you not understand? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. So sorry about that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

One more sock of Wiki pro
Hi DoRD. Here is yet another sock:. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean ? —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the edits on my talk, Dr.K. and C.Fred. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's him. Please get rid of him for me, as I am feeling extremely uncomfortable about this attack. Can you please rangeblock him as well, in order to prevent him from continuously abusing me (and other users)? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk)

Feel free to close them myself
OK, but are there any tricks to it? Logs? Magic templates? It's only recently I've had anything much to do with SPI, and I still feel like a bull in a china shop, or a child learning to walk. There seem to be many wrinkles to SPI reports (perhaps chiefly to do with filing them). Do I just type the magic word "Close" and thereby perform a close? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, all you have to do is add "close" to the template like I did here. For that and other information about what admins can do with cases, you might want to look at WP:SPI/AI. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Latest sock of Daffyduck1234
Hi. You CU-blocked Pomloverborn1999, a sock of Daffyduck1234. Now the editor User:GoldenCorral is editing the same suite of articles. Could you check to see if this is the same editor and block if appropriate? Thanks. BMK (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That account and are ✅ socks. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the quick action. BMK (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's probable that User:Hellomyfairkitty is the latest sock. Although there's only one article overlap (Theresa Caputo), the pattern is exactly the same. BMK (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They and Dodomother5985 are the latest socks. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Topbill1818 might be another. BMK (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, plus three others. :\ ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

GoluckyMon seems like it's another. BMK (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BashMonster too. BMK (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - those two plus MrEditorManToFrond are now blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, sorry to keep bugging you. BMK (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, at least they're easy to spot. There was another possible sock created a short time ago, but it hasn't edited yet, so please keep an eye on the usual targets. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do. BMK (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Dodobird587 is another. BMK (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Donemoney and ColleenCharokee looks like the newest ones. BMK (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assume there's no way to stop account creation by this person - they're not on a static IP or a small enough range that it could be blocked? BMK (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think so, and these two accounts were on a different range. I'll see if anything can be done when the (inevitable) next accounts pop up. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Daft SPI
Sorry, I'm afraid I messed the page format. I was surprised to see two entries already there. Thanks for doing the fix. Jack | talk page 15:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem - I know that the format can be confusing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

More socks of Mr Wiki Pro
He's back as User:Democrat supporter Mr Wiki Pro, and he's continuing to harass me. Are there any ways in which I can stop him from spamming my notifications bar? Can you please block him, and see if there's a way to keep him from coming back? Thanks. I greatly appreciate any help you can offer. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another admin has blocked the account. Unfortunately, the only advice I can offer is to ignore him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, hopefully this will end soon. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Good day, sir. Here's another one.
 * User:Paper cup of beeer.

He apologized to me, but I'm very unsure about whether or not he means it. Regardless, I believe that the continuation of creating sock accounts breaches WP:SOCK. By the way, Happy Easter! :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was telling the truth I am going to stop annoying you lightandDark.--Paper cup of beeer (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, only your actions will determine the truth of that. By the way, you should really stop harassing other users and give up sockpuppetry for good. It's not doing you any good at all. If you stop, at least there is a small chance that you can eventually return to Wikipedia as a good contributer. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I will not return as a good contributer. Socking is too adictive. --No more thank spam (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * sigh. As much as that disappoints me, your choice is your choice. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

LeeParq and TwoEscarf
I noticed you blocked ; could you possibly take a look at who looks somewhat similar to me? --John (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did block that account, apparently. Can you give me a diff or two to show that LeeParq is related to them? Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies...I was tired and didn't look at their contributions. After checking, I ended up blocking LeeParq and four more related accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the histories of some of the articles edited by these accounts, I'm certain that there are more socks out there, but I'll have to dig deeper to figure out if there is a known master account. These are all the same, if anyone wants to research it before I get around to it:
 * Moved to Sockpuppet investigations/FlappyBird
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Poaching on your territory
I took the liberty of blocking this range, which you have previously blocked based on checkuser evidence. The anonymous IP vandalism from this range was sufficient cause (in my opinion) for an "ordinary" range block, but their track record plus my spider sense detecting correlation with a gaggle of recent VOAs led me to harden the block. Feel free to overrule me if I went too far. Favonian (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The block is just fine - the only edits from that range are by the same abusive vandal. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Goody. Talking about poaching, this character implicitly claims to come from the same farm. Such wasted energy. Favonian (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't understand what motivates people like this, but I do what I can to slow them down. Thanks again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Socks with abusive account names
Can you look for a connection between the new accounts at ? (unrelated to the one IP edit in there, it just happened to be at the same time) Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another CU has already taken care of everything. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke
See Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke and reply. I don't see any possibility that I will get the access to any of those 2 accounts anymore, because one was banned without any actual reason, you had a scan so you know it. And I don't remember password of other acc anymore. But main thing is, that i never abused any of these accounts, and I have tagged them. I don't know if I can create a page on User:RealRx, but i think that the account can be unbanned, because you can see that it was not related to User:Rafikhsk. Aciddery (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I only performed a technical investigation, but please feel free to explain the connections between your multiple accounts at the case linked above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

CU
Would it be possible for another go at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bob1781, I don't sock, and a thing like this makes it easier to take shots at me. You did a cu on me lately. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing I can do for you with respect to that account as there is no longer any CU data for them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Roweltenon
You placed a checkuser block on this user for 'abusing multiple accounts', but I do not see who the other accounts were. He's asked me about it, since it involves an article of his I declined to delete, before he was blocked, that has since been deleted. He was blocked after the article was entered, so it matters for G5 which the other accounts are and when they were blocked. If it shouldn't be stated here,, please email me, or ask me to email you.  DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem stating it here: It is User:Mangoeater1000. Again. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure if you blocked for being the same person; if so, have a look at . -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These two (and a number of others, recently) are User:Catcreekcitycouncil. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Query
Hi, I posted an SPI report on the 20th (LudoVicar), and am wondering if I needed to have presented it in a better way - no one seems to have touched it. Quite a few that were posted after me have been dealt with and makes me think I've done it incorrectly. I've only done this once before. Any tips you can give? DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I must apologize - I got very busy elsewhere right around the time you left this message, and I completely forgot about responding to it. I see that another CheckUser handled the case, so hopefully it is taken care of for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Connor Byrne
Hi the other day I created an article about Irish actor Connor Byrne. Notable for playing Mike Milligan in the tracy Beaker Franchise which had good sources got deleated. What should I do.86.150.247.196 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to - Connor Byrne was last deleted in 2011. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride: Houston
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but if you look at my contributions, you'll see that content creation isn't one of my strong points. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Wiki Pro
What a drawer! Is there no way CU can slam it shut? DMacks (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not without blocking far too many legitimate anon users, sadly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dang, thanks for the info. DMacks (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPI
I was looking at some SPI cases, having just filed one and I'm puzzled by the outcomes. In this case, Ruhn950 had multiple accounts and received a one week block. I saw other editors who were found to have sock accounts who received similar blocks (1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month). But then there are many cases like Difulton where an editor receives an immediate indefinite block. When I've seen editors with these indefinite blocks for socking requesting to be unblocked, they are usually told to take the standard offer--no socking for 6-12 months and then try again. Also, editors receiving WP:DUCK blocks also usually receive indefinite blocks.

So, there is a great disparity between a one week block and, effectively, a 6-12 month block and I don't see that much different in the cases, there are two or three sock accounts, not a sockfarm. When considering how to react to a SPI that finds confirmed or likely socking, what factors influence the length of time of a block? I'm not arguing for leniency or harshness, I'm just trying to understand how SPI works. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is typically left up to the discretion of the administrator handling the case as far as sanctions go, and it usually depends on how disruptive the socking has been and whether the admin thinks that the editor is or could be a productive member of the community or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight
DoRD, sorry, but that's how I wrote up this whale, and I kept it for ease of editing--I had to make lots of copy edits, and some material was added and tweaked. I think I'm pretty much done with it, and I understand your re-formatting. And now, of course, I hope you'll take the day off to review the evidence! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. To be honest, there have been so many edits to the case in the last few days that I didn't know who the original filer was. Anyway, I have only taken a cursory look at it at this point. I'm not at all familiar with CoM, but I may take a closer look at the case later today. I was sort of hoping that would provide some more insight before I had a go at it. ;) Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, I understand: I also find it difficult, sometimes, to figure out who filed something when I'm going through archived SPIs (I do think that the formatting, with those span things, is not very helpful--but of course the "comments" sections have a tendency to get way too big sometimes). Anyway, the story is still developing: I just noticed, and this is relevant for CU, that there was another ChildofMidnight sock blocked, in 2012, during Candleabracadabra's tenure. That account only has 411 edits--and with only 189 talk page edits, they manage to overlap with Candle on four different talk pages--including the ones edited by ChildofMidnight, Freakshownerd, and others: mine, 's, and that of . In other words, while I have some sympathy for denying the (first) request, I think there's an additional reason to run CU, besides the newly added evidence listed in the SPI under "...with other CoM socks". Drmies (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is that I knew CoM back when he and I patrolled AFD and he was pretty easy to get along with, then I left Wikipedia for two years, and he had changed and became troublesome by the time I came back. My head naturally sees CoM as the old CoM who was a friend, not the later CoM who became a pain in the ass, so it hard to look passed and be objective about the later CoM.  That said, I do see similarities, but I don't trust my objectivity enough to make the block myself.   Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks, Dennis. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk: Canyouhearmenow
Hello, I saw that a comment I made on the userpage User talk:Canyouhearmenow was suppressed (I believe by you) as a violation of WP:BLP. I received no notice of this and only found out when following up on the user's talk page. The edit I made was civil and did not contravene WP:BLP; it was in response to an e-mail I received from that user, and our conversation was brief and, I thought, reasonably cordial. (Naturally, since the edit has been suppressed, I cannot link to it. But its existence is demonstrable in the talk page edit history at .)

I don't particularly mind if the user does not wish to read the comment again nor have it publicly displayed (he blanked it immediately after I wrote it). What I do care about is the intimation that I have violated Wikipedia policy with those words. I do not know what happens to suppressed comments, or what sorts of records are kept about who has been suppressed when and how often, but I do not want this to negatively impact my reputation as an editor down the line. How should I proceed in this matter? Chubbles (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please rest assured that your edit was not the offending one. To completely remove the offending material, several edits between the introduction and the removal of the BLP violation had to be hidden. Your innocent edit, unfortunately, was one of those. Also, please note that the edits were hidden with revision deletion, which is available to all administrators, rather than with suppression. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/1abacada
There's something fishy going on here. Please look at the report and my note. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very fishy, indeed. Found 'em, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Fraudulent unblock request
See, as an extra bonus on top of User talk:24.186.95.157. Persistent! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Altimgamr
Hello. I added one more IP to the IP without noticing that it had been closed. Could you take a look at it, or do I need to open a new case? Thomas.W talk 15:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I updated my comment. I had already given that mobile IP a short block before you added it, actually. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Return of Daffyduck1234?
I think you might want to check both Rlofivesix and Flothebeans on the basis of their edits to Gus Wickie, an article that DD1234, Pomloverborn1999, and GoldenCorral all edited. It seems to be a magnet for DD1234. BMK (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having gone through their edits, I'm pretyy certain of it, all the point are there: mobile editing only, uploading mobile phone picture of copyrighted images to Commons and then inserting them into articles (all deleted from Commons now), adding unsourced dates of birth (even one for a fictional character), repetitive edits to the same articles, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you found some sleepers as well. BMK (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "Flothebeans" supposed to be a take on "Floquenbeam", either the Wikipedia editor or the Tolkien character? BMK (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are Dd1234, alright. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Daffyduck1234 for the rest of the accounts I found. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had actually spotted Roy2567 as a possible, but the others I didn't see. BMK (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw that User:KarGasD tagged myself and MarnetteD today, identifying themselves as Dd1234, and was indeffed for it. You might also want to check out User:Maggianos. BMK (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I also saw (and blocked) KarGas and KarGas29 when I was looking for another bunch of socks on a heavily abused mobile range. Maggianos is on a different range, but it matches Flothebeans and other Dd1234 socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you ever feel like one of those guys in The Matrix, looking at code and deciphering "reality" from it? Drmies (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to give too much away, but you'd be surprised at how apt that comparison is, really. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's how I feel when I point some non-Wikipedian to Recent changes... Drmies (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:LDBrownsugar. BMK (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, it doesn't match - this may be someone else messing around. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to steer you wrong on that one. BMK (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant after blowing that last one, but KellOsborne528612184 looks good as another sock. BMK (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Mardydion, whose only edits have been to the above user's pages and their own page. BMK (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Looks like you've been a bit inactive for the last couple of days, so I just wanted to point to the two comments above in case you missed them.  Sorry for bugging you. BMK (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. KellOsborne528612184, Mardydion, KellOsborne528612, Mrfrond1810 and Michaelbolton2585 are all Dd1234. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope this guy grows out of it soon. BMK (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be back so soon. Based on their image upload to Commons (which uses exactly the same somewhat unique naming format as that all of Dd1234's socks use for their images), and the fact that the image (which was inserted into Boo (dog), an article also edited by MrFrond) purpoirts to be a live dog, but is in fact a stuffed animal, I think that Tieren17 is worth a look as a possible sock. BMK (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but since they haven't edited in a month, and since they haven't turned up as a match in any of my checks, I think I'll leave them be for now. Let me know if they resume editing, though. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. BMK (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Archiving before this gets any older and longer. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Hey. I know we've had our dealings in the past, and I know you probably don't trust my intentions. I wanted to let you know, though, that I really am committed to being a productive and sock-free editor. Only time will tell, and over time you'll see that I can be trusted. I'd also like to apologize for how I behaved toward you in the past. It was uncalled for. I really just needed to grow up, I guess. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology, but yes, I am skeptical. However, if you keep to the promises you made on your talk page, and follow the advice given to you there, we shouldn't have any problems. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully intend to abide by what others have told me. In a way, I suppose I owe you a debt of gratitude as well, as your blocking of IPs I've frequently used gave me a chance to go long enough without socking to realize that it was much better to be a productive contributor and thus mostly remove my desire to sock. I still get the urge now and then, but I don't give in to it. If it gets really bad, I suppose I may have to resort to vandalizing non-WMF wikis, but the urge hasn't been nearly that strong. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

help
Whats a "sock puppet"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flower Pot Snail Trail (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And, while we're on the topic, can you have a look at Danny Boy23? Drmies (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked at that account a few days ago, but I wasn't sure. Now, another CU has taken care of him. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Clean Start.
Ok, before you place a sock tag saying this is a sockpuppet of Qattus1055 etc etc, just hear me out. I am actually sick and tired of doing more damage to this wiki and would like to know that if I can ever have a clean start, hekk even if it takes a year. Sure I might forget by then but at least I would have cleared the name of this once and for all. CleanStart1055 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Clean start is very clear: it cannot happen unless your original account is free of blocks and/or restrictions. That is you you clear your name.  Once it's unblocked, you can fade one account away, and clean start on another ... ''as long as you don't return to the same behaviours on that new account.
 * So, how do you get your original account unblocked?
 * Do not edit the English Wikipedia whatsoever. No anonymous edits, no new accounts, no edits
 * Re-read all of the core policies and purposes of this project. Start with WP:5P and keep going
 * Do some positive work on a related project - such as the Simple Wikipedia
 * During this time, you should have been able to a) re-evaluate your goals, and b) realize that vandalizing Wikipedia is the same as spraypainting someone's car or ripping pages out of a library book
 * After 6 months of the above ... or longer if you even ONCE get the urge to so something stupid ... go back to your original account. Read WP:GAB and WP:AAB.  Be honest, open and sincere about your past, recent successes elsewhere, and your future in your unblock request
 * If that is successul, WP:CLEANSTART becomes open to you. Creating sock accounts to WP:EVADE like you just did is proof you DON'T want to change
 * the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, yes I know I am evading at the moment but it was one of the only ways to speak to be perfectly honest... anyway I'll read through and get started. CleanStart1055 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No - breaking additional rules is NOT a means to an end. If you had posted the same question on your original account talkpage, and used adminhelp, then you prompt someone to come and answer.  Breaking the rules to solve an issue does not solve the issue  the panda ɛˢˡ”  13:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to remember the password for my older account because honestly I never really set an e-mail so, but I understand what you mean about two wrongs not making a right. CleanStart1055 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold up here. "...vandalizing Wikipedia is the same as spray painting someone's car or ripping pages out of a library book"? No, it's not. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but unlike the other two actions mentioned (A.) it's not illegal, and (B.) the damage it does can be easily undone at no monetary expense. I'm a reformed ex-vandal myself, and while I no longer practice or condone vandalism, that comparison is very inappropriate. Technology may one day advance to a place where spray-paint on the side of a car can be "reverted" with a few clicks, but we're nowhere near that now. If vandalism is so egregious, then why do we mark reversions as "minor edits," or deny recognition to vandals? If a car is spray-painted, do the police shrug it off and not try to track down and prosecute the vandal? No! Furthermore, on Wikipedia, there is no private ownership anyway. But again, horrible comparison. Please try to pick a more appropriate one next time. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, police departments do regularly ignore minor vandalism, as do we - we just fix it and go on our way. But no police department worth its salt is going to ignore continued multiple vandlisms or major acts like spray painting a car.  Often, they don't know who did it, but if they do know (and we do know), they will follow up.  Similarly, if a book goes out of a library and comes back defaced, and the library staff are aware of it, you can bet they'll either charge you the replacement value of the book or cancel your library card. Vandalism of Wikipedia is most decidely  just like vandalism in real life, and, what;s more, it is "against the law" because it violates the site's terms of service and egregious offenders have been, and will continue to be, reported to their ISPs.  So, please, don't go around spreading any false notions that vandalizing Wikipedia is any less anti-social, destructuve and "illegal" than acts of vandalism in real life, bevcause it just ain't so. BMK (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't read what I wrote, did you? I'm aware that minor vandalism is sometimes let go by police, but my point remains valid: one type of vandalism generally causes permanent and/or expensive damage, one does not. Which Wikipedia action would you equate to spray-painting or keying a car, for instance? Also, when I said that vandalizing Wikipedia is not illegal, I meant in the real world. That's where most of us are most of the time; site policy can't land one in a real-life clinker. I also highly doubt that ISPs do much about the abuse reports, mainly because vandalism of Wikipedia is far less important, and causes far less harm, than, say, stealing a person's identity or engaging in a child porn ring. (Also, two of those three things can get you arrested. Care to guess which one can't?) Again, I'm not condoning vandalism: it is clearly antisocial. But to compare it to real-world crimes is ignorant of the real world. I truly believe that there would be less vandalism if Wikipedians (especially admins) would simply revert it and go on with their business rather than acting like it's the end of the world. Create articles, not drama. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read what you wrote. Check you attitude at the door, friend, you're not a vandal anymore, stop trying to make things easier for them. Go about your business making productive edits, and keep your nose clean. BMK (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:RelStaLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:RelStaLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I didn't realize that the logo had been removed from Reliant Stadium. The stadium is in the process of being renamed to NRG Stadium, and as far as I know, the new logo has not been revealed yet. Anyway, I have no objections to it being deleted, and had I been the original uploader, I would go ahead and delete it now. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

re: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrwallace05
Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrwallace05/Archive

This guy appears to be back with yet another account: Special:Contributions/HocolPrarum

Should a new SPI be opened or can you just look into it? Thanks. Caper454 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * HocolPrarum is a ✅ match to the last sock in the archive, MetalicMadness. The account has been blocked. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected redirect was removed
Hi! I'm asking this of you because WilliamH has retired, and I saw your name on his talk page responding to another issue. I went to his talk page because he protected a redirect (Zultanite), but the protection template was removed by ModestOhaio a few days ago. For all I know, the mineral is legit, but the excessive number of refs and the "official site" link make me wonder if the banned editor is back. I also noticed that the user's talk page has an unsigned welcome message, but the page history shows no sign of it ever being added. That was too weird for me, so I went looking for help. Can you check into this? - Gorthian (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article adds nothing that isn't included in the Diaspore article other than a few tenuous references and a promotional link, so it should probably be restored to the redirect. The welcome message was added by ReferenceBot with this edit, so there's no mystery there, but I don't see anything clearly linking the user with the banned editor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. It obviously never occurred to me that the welcome message was left at the same time as the bot's message. Maybe I'm getting paranoid in my dotage; I'm certainly having more frequent "duh!" moments. Thanks for looking. - Gorthian (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)