Hi DQ. Thank you for your diligent work in this SPI. In the NickCochrane SPI, User:Pburka has suspicions that NickCochrane might actually be User:Yohowithrum, a user who was blocked for multiple account violations. Both accounts have remarkably similar article interests and the NickCochrane actually deleted comments about the now-blocked Yohowithrum's COI.[1] Cochrane's account was created soon after Yohowithrum was blocked. Can you possibly do a CU on this account? I put it up in the SPI . Thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at this when I ran the original check, the evidence is quite flaky. The best I could give you is a meatpuppet but i'm not even sure about that. That's why I didn't include him in my results. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your advice. Given that I have been one of the two main targets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft in the past (see the archive), can you please accept my assurance that this guy Cdomm is okay and should not have been nominated. Especially as the nominator did not provide any diffs and clearly jumped to a conclusion on the knee-jerk principle. In other words, please CLOSE the SPI IMMEDIATELY and leave this guy alone for now unless he does something else to make me and others in WP:CRIC think the worse of him. The overall situation with sockpuppet mania does not exactly help WP so please take notice of someone who has been active on the site for most of the last seven years and has provided nearly 50,000 constructive edits. Thank you. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The master's spirit is wandering around Israel-Turkey relations again... Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

InfinityBandit, who had similar contributions to World cup 35 is  Unrelated. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that one. User:RiverNiles2 and maybe another too. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed EILATisr (talk · contribs) and RiverNiles2 (talk · contribs). Very  Likely Findblogging is related. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also add Deutschwell (talk · contribs) as  Confirmed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day DQ, thanks for your quick and effective action on the Vojvodina socks. No doubt this is not over, but at least some deterrence effect has been achieved. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but some of those categories where actually quite legit. No need for revert of that... --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nja, only several edits actually, i already restored that... --WhiteWriter^speaks 23:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If you guys are talking about 118.99.76.171, that's Oldhouse2012. WhiteWriter, i'm perfectly within my rights to revert him, and your perfectly within your rights to revert me, i'm not stopping you, you just take responsibility for the edit. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thanking you for your action on the Oldhouse2012 socks. I am also reverting the sock edits, but as you point out, WW is well within his rights to restore them (but then they are his edits, not a sock's). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Aahah, such a diplomatic conversation! :) :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to know we are all on the same page :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I won't argue strongly, and your placing the block will ease my eyes and fingers, but is a week-long block necessary? If anything it looks like we have a sock making the same edits rather than a problem with a whole bunch of newbie/IP's. (I'd rather they just be summarily blocked if they haven't already been.) Since I wasn't privy to the block request or discussion don't take this as a major complaint. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I responded to an SPI and to RFPP requests. The protection was not because of the SPI case, but because most of the IPs have been vandalizing and have been reverted. A week could be a little long, but it's not out of the ballpark since this will be in the news over the next few days and get even more attention. The only two that I know to be the same are the users on that SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Still seems a bit much since I can imagine IP users might have something to say, and it is easy enough to block registered socks (who should also be discouraged by this), but I don't really disagree strongly and do appreciate your response. μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, if you think the issue has calmed down (aka media outlets aren't still talking about it like it's new news) by next Wendsday or so, drop me a note, and we'll try removing it or PC. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)

I'll drop you a reply sometime in the next 48 hours, but i'm off to bed for now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to appear dense; this user has been recently blocked as a sockpuppet, and is requesting unblock. The comment at the SPI is not immediately clear to me; it is "CU blank case needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)". There are other sock accounts unequivocably demonstrated, and an IP which the user in question does not deny using, but claims it to be dynamic. As you know I have no CU facility and can only go on your findings; the difficulty is that I do not quite understand what they are! So, in a word please, is this user a checkuser-proven sockpuppet account? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(tps) This is the comment where DQ confirmed the sockpuppetry. I've just had another look at it due to the unblock request, and found and blocked another sock, Redneck Dylan. ​—DoRD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, yes it is as DoRD pointed out above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Could look at the unblock request at User talk:Elnichole? It refers to this range block that you placed. Thanks in advance. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied, i'm not comfortable at all handing out IPBE just yet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dealt with. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

To help sweeten your day as you have sweetened the day of many others around you. Jab843 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at SPI. It's the ability to continue socking that has me perplexed, not the mechanics of him being able to access his talk page.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dbromage/Archive. One side of the edit war was indef'd due to SPI. I have lifted the protection at the article and think the template probably doesn't need it anymore either. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I killed the protection. (Which apparently was indef O_o) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

the removal of an AfD notice replacing it with the misplaced articles for creation submission template at Tofael – the tea stall boy. There's a live AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofael – the tea stall boy and in any case it was probably a speedy candidate but I decided to go to AfD rather than delete. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would say just take it back to AfC, but the AfD has already started. If the community comes to a consensus that it's not notable, then it shouldn't exist anyway. Maybe note in the AfD that it was going to go back to AfC, not that it will do much. Otherwise, it's probably best if we let the AfD take it's course so that the AFC doesn't hit the mainspace and then gets to be nom'd for deletion and trashed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 10:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. I wasn't sure whether there was something I didn't know about AFC. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--WhiteWriter^speaks 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to tell someone that the IPs 87.232.1.48 , 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 are probably used by one and the same person to give the impression that there is a name change consensus at the Murder of Travis Alexander article. 87.232.1.48 and 134.226.254.178 are almost certainly the same person using the exact same reasonings and the same kind of "over the top" language. If you have the time could you check it out as it is kind of bad to use more then one IP to give the impression of consensus at an articles talk page discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Geolocation puts them all in the same country, so it's possible they are all related. One was definitely a school IP, the other one seems to be a home IP, and the last one seems to be related to the home IP. Since there is only one contribution from each of the two IPs, I can't be completely sure, but from a quick look it appears that they are the same, though i'm not sure there was a disruptive intent to deceive as they just could have edited from different locations. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Shankysupercool which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been resolved. Thanks for letting me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 albert square (talk • contribs)

 Done Replied. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi DQ. I'm just letting you know that I've lifted the block on Zerosprite. I've seen a number of newer users cock up talkpage editing since HotCat was universally enabled, and it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to accept that this is what's happened here. If you disagree, or if I've missed something important, do please tell me. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good and looks like he's contributing positively. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, a consensus has been reached to re-name the page Beef Mince to Ground Beef. I believe the help of an administrator would be needed to take it to the next step. Brodey (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be move-protected. If you click on the move button (next to the history button) and explain it with something like "per talk page discussion", I don't think you'll have any problems. Greengreengreenred 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the term "Ground Beef" is already being used as a re-direct for "Beef Mice" when i tried to move the page it recommended contacting an admin. Brodey (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Declined You socked, and closed the discussion involved. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DeltaQuad. I suspect Green Man 20 (talk · contribs) is a MMA sockpuppet. He registered just two weeks ago, and now is !voting keep in many MMA-related AfD's. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed with Entity of the Void (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Same stuff... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied a few hours ago. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at BigBenzino's talk page.
Message added 13:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! As you know, I am an OTRS member since long. But my rights over here at Commons en.wiki don't reflect that. When inquired at the OTRS Cafe i was told that probably the respective Project's sysops could fix that. Hence here. Could you please fix it? Proof of me being an OTRS member. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You will need to go to commons:Commons:BN to request the OTRS flag; it is only available on Commons. --Rschen7754 04:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dharmadhyaksha, so there is no OTRS flag here on enwiki, and I don't have the Bureaucrat flag over at commons, but if you ask at over at the 'crats noticeboard on commons, they should be able to help. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aah! So sorry! I meant here at en.wiki, not Commons. (Copy pasted it.) I have asked another sysop to do that at Commons, will wait for their response and then get to the link Rschen pointed. Strange that we don't have such flag. I thought everything starts here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned you didn't like him calling other people sockpuppets. The third problem I mentioned originally, removing lots of partially referenced text as no reference, POV, and then again as this not changed the fact that there are not references, POV ect, that he described at AE with:

also I saw a large part of the text without sources and who was added again and again by someone, or from the new user Shokatz. To me its looked like POV, I thought it was a sock. And because there are no sources for this was given, I decided to remove it. But I was never rude, etc. [2]

Didn't he just effectively double down on the "people-are-socks" problem there, in addition to continuing to claim that there are no sources despite the simple fact there were two sources (one link to wikisource and one external ref link) in the removed text?

I'm asking because you proposed the topic of the ban to be limited to in a manner that doesn't cover this topic (not even broadly construed). I think he needs to stay away from all sorts of contentious Serbian nationalist topics where he's continued to make serious errors despite warnings, not just one particular segment where the edits were so egregiously bad that they couldn't be explained as "errors". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like anyone calling people sockpuppets without evidence. I do see your point though and somehow I missed that topic area when proposing the topic ban. I have asked other admins how to word that specific topic as Serbia seems too broad to ban, though I'm open to options that will work. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Have i rights? May I express my opinion? Is that all I have said to my defense unimportant? meaningless? I have no rights? Why is shared from the beginning in black and white? Why do all the good things I've done is overlooked? Why is not asked for my opinion? I have shown that I was right in relation to the socks? Why ist overlooked Why? Do somebody asked me about the Zemun case?--Nado158 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I read over your comments and did not feel that your responses were compelling enough that you were contributing positively to the topic area. Also, editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Also on KillerChihuahua's talkpage, I felt that a full ban of the Serbia was a bit overboard and stated that there. I did not ask for a specific opinion from you, as I thought you provided it in your response. I don't feel that every admin has to ask you every question about your editing. Regarding the socks, you have not provided evidence to backup all of your sock accusations. That's why I proposed what I did. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, i wrote about 98% Serbian sport, especially about football, but also basketball etc., I never had a problem with nobody. I improved a lot of articles, wrote about players and stadiums etc. I create also a lot of articles about sport. I get even a barn star. You can all see this on my Wikipedia edit history etc. Please allow me to write about Serbian sports. This have nothing to do with politics and is not a controvers topics. I'm only come because of sports to wikipedia, only the last months I am moved a little bit to other topics. But my main topic, my beloved topic is sport, this is a topic which interrested me 120%. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia, why so a hard punishment. I made mistakes in politic topics, but I never hat a problem with sports. You banned me because of my mistakes about controvers politic topics, but why i banned also for sport, although i never made mistakes there and although I was never prosecuted there?I think its right to punish for things who someone done wrong, but I never made mistakes there and i was never prosecuted there. I have no other interest area here and I had to wait a year to get back to improve Serbian sporting articles or update. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia.--Nado158 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering what was the reasoning behind the range ban of 75.187.64.0/20 for a month. I assume this will require a lot of people in my neck of the woods to login in order to edit. Could you please enlighten me as to why this was necessary? I couldn't find a justification anywhere. Maybe I was just looking in the wrong place. Also, why are there so many indefinite range bans? Are they all open proxies or what? Is there a place I can find that out? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The rangeblock is not indefinite. It expires on 02:43, March 3, 2013 as the message on your screen should indicate. The reason behind it is in this template. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see that this particular one is not indefinite. What were the instances of vandalism that resulted in this range ban? I'm not asking it for it to be lifted early, I'm just wondering what led to it. Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't reveal the exact reason for the range block without violating the Privacy policy. Basically, though, someone was creating a large number of sockpuppet accounts on the range, so DQ blocked it to prevent that from continuing. It is a step we would prefer to avoid, but sometimes it is necessary. ​—DoRD (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

i have opened a discussion at WP:AN regarding an unblock request by this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't one I directly blocked, I only reblocked after the socking was found, but nonetheless, thanks for the notice. I might find sometime to review things, and if I do, i'll stop by and comment, otherwise i'll leave this to the community. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to remind you that you forgot to log this sanction [3] at Wikipedia:ARBAA2#2013_2. Regards, Grandmaster 22:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Gah...sorry about that. Thanks for the poke. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)