User talk:Indiafriend

Due to shenanigans with denied unblock notices (here and here), I've removed Indiafriend's talk page access. Any admin that chooses to enter into a dialogue with him will need to restore talk page access.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As a further note, the IP address he mentions above (199.103.63.174) isn't an end-user IP address: it's a webhost from Cirrus Tech Hosting that would allow a user anywhere in the world to appear to be from Toronto. I've blocked 199.103.56.0/21 from editing due to it being a webhost IP range.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh God. This looks like another admin abusing his privileges. Because he has no ‘’’real’’’ evidence, this block truly is based off of assumption and not facts. Obviously if this user was Soccermeko, he would have went straight to the Nicole Wray like the previous socks. Let’s note that Soccermeko and Indiafriend have different writing styles.Diffs Also note that this user had create a short bio before it was erased by Kww. Although I assume her intentions were to expand the articles related to Nicole Wray, I believe they were completely misinterpreted by admin with nothing but free time on his hand. As Indiafriend stated above, if you do the research you will get the same results. I just did a search on the artist via Google and Yahoo, and I also found information worthy of contributing. If I edit the page, does that also make a sockpuppet.. hahaha. Lastly, why was no investigation done as Wikipedia rules tell you to do? The last time I checked before and after doing my own sockpuppet investigation of another user, we are supposed to do a checkuser and then proceed with opening a sockpuppet investigation. We are also supposed to provide ‘’’Diffs’’’. Why are their no ‘’’Diffs’’’. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. So yeah, we have another admin (possibly admins) abusing their power again. Ridicous. This user is obviously not a sock. Marvelct124 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Marvelct124, I'm afraid that message shows that you are completely unaware of the extent of the evidence, which goes way beyond the superficial coincidences taht you seem to assume are the whole thing. Also, it also shows that you have quite inaccurate impressions of what of policies and guidelines say, in a number of respects. Far from requiring a checkuser before blocking for sockpuppetry, the guidelines strongly discourage use of checkuser in cases where behavioural evidence is sufficient. I have no idea how you get the idea that "we are supposed to do a checkuser and then proceed with opening a sockpuppet investigation": checkuser is almost always done in response to a request in a sockpuppet investigation, so opening the investigation comes first, the checkuser (when necessary) later. As for all the stuff about providing evidence such as diffs, that is instructions to non-administrators on how to request an investigation by an administrator, not instructions to administrators on how to conduct an investigation. Essentially, a sockpuppet investigation is a request for an administrator to look into the case: an administrator does not have to go through some formal process of requesting himself/herself to investigate before doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)


 * One more point. A checkuser would be completely pointless in this case, as the editor has openly stated that he/she is using an IP address which is known to be a webhost. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)