User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/May

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev
Drpms (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skipsievert
I didn't see this right away, as I've been busy off wiki. It is surprising to me that it is not a sock. Possibly it is worked from different computers, as I notice that there is a fair amount of time separation between entries by the two accounts. You noted the suggestion of meatpuppetry. This also seems possible. I would like to take a closer look at the respective edits of the two accounts. Also, I think that there may be others who would like to comment. Would you be willing to re-open this matter? Sunray (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dilip_rajeev
This is to humbly point out that my alternate account has been mistakenly characterized as a sock account. I have not done a single edit of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet nature from either of the accounts - could you kindly take a look at my note here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Dilip_Rajeev and do as you find appropriate.

Awaiting your response.

Sincerely, Dilip Rajeev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.69.23 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dilip Rajeev 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir am forced to contribute as IP because even my talk page is blocked. Could you kindly look into and enable at least talk page editing so that I may clarify things using my original account. I have been a long term contributor to wikipedia - an I assure you that you can trust me enough to enable talk page editing at least. 218.248.69.23 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, my talk page is protected to edit from within my former account, so please permit me use current Deelip rajiv account. I marked two others as former, to avoid socking. Deelip rajiv (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppeteering
User:Dilip rajeev sock puppeteered again today on his talk page, despite of his promise to talk logged there. Evidence: Special:Contributions/218.248.69.32. 82.119.226.53 (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

He did so despite of having his talk unblocked. I already added relevant evidence to Sockpuppet investigations/Dilip rajeev. 82.119.226.53 (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this is the blocked user, it isn't a violation of WP:SOCK. He is allowed to edit his own talk page.... Mayalld (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev makes some obvious charades, because he lies and cheats that he doesn't use IPs even on his talk here, while he did so as follows: 82.119.226.53 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that 82.119.226.53 is an Open proxy, AIV denied the request so can it be blocked for being an OP? Momo san  Gespräch 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan mistaked here, see this diff. 82.119.226.53 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't block proxies of constructive editors, for example dissidents, they originate from communist countries and you by this blocking are harming them. 82.119.226.53 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Block and Open_proxies, Proxies once discovered may be blocked onsight due to their nature of abuse per policy, While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.  Momo san  Gespräch 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus at least please block and alter already existing proxy blocks to allow legitimate users from censored countries such as communist countries to use these proxies when logged, while blocking all anonymous proxy usages. Is that possible? 82.119.226.53 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms that Dilip rajeev did not create those accounts and an imposter was responsible. Please see here at AGK's talk page. Momo san Gespräch 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. If only I could spend 5 minutes dealing with the case without an orange "you have new messages" box popping up, I'd clear up the case. Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: sockpuppet check report
Hello, thank you for reviewing my report and letting me know that the IMDB indeed does not qualify as a reliable source. I had initially assumed good faith on these editors (who I am still not convinced aren't the same person) of the Clint Catalyst article; however, other established editors (NeutralHomer can be found on said user's Talk page regarding the matter) have no problem with a bibliography containing ISBN numbers and no other sources (which the editor did not even request), despite that this editor continuously removes them claiming I "copied and pasted" them, which I did not. Additionally, he removes any content that lacks what he deems to be proper citation, without simply adding a citation needed tag - isn't that against Wikipedia policy as well? Combined with the user's Talk page history of other complaints, I am led to believe there is a serious COI issue and that the user is gaming the system. Could you please look a little further into this matter? Thank you. Granny Bebeb (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is possible to add "citation needed" tags to disputed facts, it is by no means compulsory to do so. It is equally valid to remove it, particularly where the article concerned is a BLP.
 * SPI is a place to come if you are certain that somebody is operating multiple accounts contrary to policy. It is not the place to come every time two editors are agreed in their opposition to your edits. Mayalld (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedural question on tagging socks
Hi, Mayalld, I had a question regarding tagging IP socks, and am writing you because you were the clerk on a recent related SPI case (Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor/Archive). I'd appreciate it if you weighed in at WT:SPI. Sorry if you're the wrong person to ask about this! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted that this seems to be in relation to this message you left at Tennis expert's user talk back in March. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev
I've been looking into the now archived investigation into sockpuppetry of the above user. I spot something which appears very amiss, but perhaps there is a simple explanation.

There were allegations that Rajeev was socking with, whereas this was in fact a shell account. The actual account used to edit-war and point push on Sathya Sai Baba was - all the offending edits were made by the latter, but signed the former. So although no puppeteering was found with White adept, quite unsurprisingly, the puppeteering through Inactive user account 001 did not even rate a mention in the investigation. Given the tendentious and disruptive history of, I am surprised how the assembled team could have missed this one. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are but human, and when presented with a case, we broadly concentrate on the evidence before us. CU didn't throw up the other sock, and as it wasn't mentioned by the reporter, we wouldn't have found it unless we indulged in a serious amount of "drains up" work on going through the edit history of every edit to pages edited by Rajeev. The additional workload to do this on every case would swamp the small team that actually works at SPI, so we are very reliant on people reporting wrongdoing fully.
 * In the case in point, the explanations offered for the additional accounts that had been reported were satisfactory, and it was very clear that there was an orchestrated "joe job" campaign going on to get the user indefed by foul means, so the case appeared to have been concluded satisfactorily.
 * If you believe that there is more evidence against Rajeev, you should re-file the case, and it will be further investigated. Naturally, there will be a need to evaluate whether these posts are actually another joe-job against Rajeev. Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I will look into it and will act accordingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
Please let me handle this case. There are reasons why I want Sciurinæ's evidences on the talkpage. The evidences are article evidences. The "other" evidences are not published. They will create some controversy. They have to be discussed on the talkpage. Will you be kind enough to revert your edits? AdjustShift (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit, please let me do my job. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So I see. That is most unfortunate! Evidence in SPI cases must be presented on case pages, not the talk page, as evidence on the talk page will not be properly archived with the rest of the case. The evidence was originally moved to the case page by SPI clerk Nathan, and you reverted him. I, as another SPI clerk, have once again placed the evidence on the case page. Please do not override clerk actions on a case. Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still a clerk? I saw your name in the "Away" section. See Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. This case is a very complex. For the past 20 days, I've tried to analyze this case very carefully. I've talked with other people, including an ArbCom and a CU, off-wiki. You want the evidences to be on the case page because the evidence on the talk page will not be properly archived with the rest of the case. Ok. My logic was when I'm concluding the case; I had to point to the evidences and the relevant discussions on the talkpage. I've to change my approach now. Please understand that this case is pretty complex. It is difficult to handle anything related to these Eastern European cases. Here we have a case where German editors have accused a Polish editor of sockpuppetry. Thanks for your input. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still a clerk. I was flagged as away on the clerks page because I was away for a couple of weeks on holiday. I'm now back. Mayalld (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for archiving some needless comments, but some of the things that you archived as "not appropriate for an SPI case" contains counter-evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SchnitzelMannGreek
Sorry about the SPI post. I posted what I wrote in the Lebanon article discussion..is that alright.?Thanks! Schnitzel MannGreek. 16:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. Where a part of an article is disputed, discussion on the talk page is the right thing to do. However, the merits or otherwise of the edits are not relevant to the SPI case. Mayalld (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI
I apologize if my comments were not on topic or not in the appropriate place. The discussion has gotten very hard to follow and the relevant pages confusing, and as a result I was not sure where what could be posted. Thank you for your notification.radek (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Word
I don't see what's wrong with the word "inflammatory". This user made a lot of claims that are not true and misleading including personal attacks he has made before and I would like to state my position on that. I thought I actually was extra-nice to put that elsewhere and just link it to the page and I see you reverting everything when really you could only have removed the word (which I still see nothing wrong with). Sciurinæ (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The SPI case exists to post evidence of sockpuppetry, not for anybody to "state their position". Calling another users remarks "inflammatory" is not evidence, it is opinion, and it is opinion that is dismissive of the user that posted them. I reverted your entire addition because it did not add to the evidence, and constituted a personal attack. The fact that you made the bulk of your comments elsewhere, and linked to them merely perpetuates the ridiculous situation that this case has ended up in, with a whole slew of crap on the talk page that doesn't help to resolve the case. Mayalld (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you were just trying to help. I don't see how calling someone's claims "inflammatory" can possibly be considered a personal attack because the adjective relates to the content rather than the person. Even WP:NPA uses it ("The appropriate response to inflammatory statements is to address the issues of content") and I think it's a more polite way to refer to something than "whole slew of crap". In my opinion absurd and damaging public claims, which were coming from that user, need to be rectified. However, I don't think it is much use arguing about it. I will be away over the next few days. You're not the only one unhappy about this situation just so you know. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
Dave, I'll be closing the case. I've analyzed the case for 20 days; you are not in a position to close the case. I've also analyzed the off-wiki evidences which will be made public shortly. If anyone makes needless comments which are not relevant to this case, please erase them; otherwise, let me handle it. AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are making the case more complex. Please let me present the off-wiki evidences. I've also analyzed the past history of Molobo. I have an idea what to do with it. AdjustShift (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be closing the case before 6:00 am UTC on 30 May. If I fail to close the case after that time, you guys can close the case. If any editor makes needless comments which are not relevant to this case, please erase them. If disruption is too much, I may even block that editor. AdjustShift (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The CUs will determine the outcome. I'm talking with them, I can't mention every thing right now. They don't have much idea about Molobo's past history. Please do one thing: leave this case to me; If I fail to close the case after the time I mentioned, you can interfere. AdjustShift (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have already told you, only SPI clerks can close cases. You are not an SPI clerk, and as such, you cannot close the case. Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing the case means making the final decisions based on the evidences. I'm not talking about archiving and all that. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we reach a consensus first? AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Within the SPI process, closing a case has a specific meaning. This case is already a disaster area, without redefining what closing a case means! Please accept that the case is now deferred to the CUs. Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No it is not a disaster area. If the case can be closed properly, then it will not be a disaster. AdjustShift (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the case IS a disaster area. It isn't just about getting the correct end result on an individual case. It is about recognising that at any one time there will be several cases running, and that there is a small team of people trying to ensure that we don't let the ball drop on any cases. This case became a disaster area, because it became near impossible for anybody to determine whether it was being dealt with appropriately. It isn't sufficient that the case is conducted properly. It must be seen to be conducted properly, and that isn't achieved by an admin with no track record in SPI claiming WP:OWNership of the case for a prolonged period of time, and insisting that others "leave him to do his work". Mayalld (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/LebaneseZp/Archive
You closed this, but I really believe that this is sockpuppetry in aid of an edit war: with   and  passing the duck test. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The case was very weak. The IP edits could be adequately explained by forgetting to log in, and the other account really wasn't convincing as a sock. If there is socking going on, more convincing evidence will be found to re-open the case in days or weeks to come. Mayalld (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NACL11
I would like you to reconsider on NACL11. Not at all revenge and unfair of you to say that. If you look at it closely he has only made a single edit over and over again. And he files complaints against anyone as though he has a user history when his history is nothing but a single edit done over and over wasting everyone's time.

It is obvious this is not his main user account since it is unlikely someone would spend 5 months knowing all the ins and outs of Wikipedia on a single edit to a single trivial incident. Yet you need to investigate and ask him directly. It is a certainty if you look through the pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelham1234 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The case cannot be reconsidered, as there is no case. For a case to exist, you need to have at least two accounts. SPI simply doesn't do "I think he must be a sock", but I don't know who.
 * As to the suggestion of a revenge accusation, if his edit history is difficult to swallow, what about yours? Your first edit is to open an SPI case, your second to complain to me that the case was closed. Whose sockpuppet are you? Mayalld (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz
It just dawned on me that the sockmaster for this is actually, which was the first to be created. It wasn't until the 2nd SPI that confirmed that Azviz and Esasus were the same, but the latter came first. Can this be appropriately moved to under the sockmaster's account name? Thank you, MuZemike 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can be moved, I'll sort it later Mayalld (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)