This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Brandon.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

I assume that since I haven't yet supplied the diffs that I was talking about atUser talk:Nja247#Sockpuppeteers accusing others of sockpuppetry, once again, you determined sockpuppetry here using your new abilities. Is that the case? Do you want the diffs?Uncle G (talk)17:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the CU check was conclusive, don't really need diffs. Thanks though.BJ^Talk17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I submitted this report is that I understood from Shell that even though I submitted this evidencence in SockpuppetInvestigations/Chiropractic, that BullRangifer was not checked or run through CheckUser because I submitted his name after the initial request was made, naming only 3 parties.

She said that if we wanted the other users checked, that we needed to submit separate reports.Here is where she said this:[1]

--stmrlbs|talk02:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer was checked for the case.BJ^Talk02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why did Shell tell me to resubmit the case? --stmrlbs|talk02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

She isn't a CheckUser and doesn't have access to the CU log.BJ^Talk02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)`

So, both QuackGuru and BullRangifer were run through CheckUser against the IPs I list in the BullRangifer SPI and neither one had any connection to those IPs?

I checked the two IPs listed in the case, neither are connected to any account.BJ^Talk02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, wish I had known that before I put this together. What a colossal waste of time. It seems like there should be a better way to state what was run - what users were checked against which IPs and which users had CheckUser run against them. It would prevent a lot of confusion. --stmrlbs|talk02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandon, I did want to thank you for checking the logs. I appreciate it. --stmrlbs|talk21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried pinging you on IRC, but it seems you weren't about. Is there any reason BJBot isn't running at the moment? I know for a fact that there are a large number of orphaned images and images used outside of the article space waiting to be dealt with.J Milburn (talk)13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Thanks.Wknight94^talk14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you had blocked modifications to theThink Tools AG page, apparently because of complaints from the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab), which followed a paragraph that correctly stated that Klaus Schwab was actually closely involved with the company. The story was very adequately backed by references to newspaper articles published at the time, and there was no reason to remove the paragraph.

The response from Klaus Schwab's spokesperson, which apparently led to blocking the page, does not dispute the information that was on that page, and the retraction he mentions was not about any of the facts stated on that page, but about something else. His complaints about the page are obviously only an attempt to present Klaus Schwab in a more favorable light and to hide any connections between Schwab and the company.

For this reason I would suggest that the original information is returned there, and if there is something specific that bothers WEF, they should specifically explain what is wrong, and not request removing a whole paragraph or ALL references to Klaus Schwab. Schwab's involvement with the company, and the introduction of the company in WEF events are indisputable facts.—Precedingunsigned comment added byJohnRC68 (talk •contribs)13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You blocked Goramon for sockpuppetry, but a cursory view of the contribs of the accounts doesn't seem to show any abusive use of multiple accounts. Am I missing something? If you could respond atUser talk:Goramon, I think it'd be best to keep as much of the discussion as possible there. Cheers.lifebaka++23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FileBot seems to be notifying editors about orphaned images with the image location as "File:File:<filename>"

-J Greb (talk)23:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.Brandon (talk)23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've undeletedTemplate:Untagged. The template is neither unused (ImageTaggingBot, which is temporarily offline, uses it), nor is it redundant (the bot can't tell the difference between an image lacking license information and one merely lacking a tag). --Carnildo (talk)20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that it's very late and I'm a bit bleary-eyed,File:GFTU logo.png seems to be included in the articleGeneral Federation of Trade Unions (UK) and hence not an orphan. FileBot has tagged it as an orphan twice. Cheers.Haus^Talk08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue, some things can cause MediaWiki to say a used image isn't. Normally purging the using page fixes it.Brandon (talk)19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't precisely a request to unprotectOsho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh), but I wanted to make you aware thatUser:Off2riorob has beenblocked for edit warring at that article. -Rrius (talk)23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do choose to keep it blocked, please add a protection template to the front page. -Rrius (talk)01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Article unprotected.Brandon (talk)01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you'd consider this a bug, but the bot markedFile:Animal I Have Become.ogg for deletion as orphaned onlythree minutes after I uploaded it. Do you think you could get it to give uploaders a bit more time to add files to an article before marking them for deletion?Timmeh(review me)02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a 24 hour check in the old bot, I'll add it to the new one.Brandon (talk)01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks.Timmeh(review me)01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FileBot has tagged my audio sample, Cherish.ogg, DontBeAfraid.ogg, SingHappy.ogg for being orphaned, and for these files not being linked to any article. These files are not orphaned, they link to the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkyoku_no_Muushika_Miishika

could you ensure my files aren't deleted, and please program FileBot to check the "Non-Free Media Rational" tag's section on what article it is linked to.User99671 (talk)02:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove the history section inCharmouth. If you take a look at the article's history in the past 24 hours you will see that I have been rewording and citing the section to remove any possibly copyvio. The only word-for-word text lifted is from a book that was published in 1834 and is not currently in copyright. --Simple Bob (talk)22:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

b.t.w. If you think any particular piece is copyvio then let me know and I'll remove/reword as appropriate. The sooner we can be shut of the legacy of that rather childish and now banned contributor the better. --Simple Bob (talk)22:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a misunderstanding from an OTRS ticket. The issue appears to be resolved now, sorry for bothering you.Brandon (talk)01:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I reported a possible case of sockpuppetry (albinofawn and fawnfan etc). I see that a checkuser was performed (I think) but to be honest I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand the result. Can you explain it to me?Bigdaddy1981 (talk)22:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia only stores user IP information for a short period of time. After this we can no longer look it up to determine if an account is a sock puppet or not. Being "stale" means the information has expired.

The results were that albinofawn and the 69.201.128.95 IP are the same person. CheckUser couldn't tell either way on the other accounts or IPs. This doesn't mean they aren't the same person, just there is less evidence to go off. The closing admin will take the CheckUser results and user behavior into account when deciding who to block or warn.Brandon (talk)01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --- that was what I thought; but I've not gone through this process before (never had to I'm glad to say).Bigdaddy1981 (talk)18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A new possible sock has emerged following the blocking of albinofawn for disruptive editing by an admin. That is eric_leiser; I have added that username to the sockcase.Bigdaddy1981 (talk)23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should delete that image I uplaoded.ChimpanzeeUK already uploaded the image forMotorStorm: Arctic Edge without the IGN.com icon, so I think you should delete my old uplaoded image.JMBZ-12 (talk)00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done.Brandon (talk)01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An arbitration case involvingUser:Noloop (who was part of a sockpuppet investigation you dealt with) has been opened. The sockpuppet investigation page ishere. Would you be able topresent evidence at the case pages about this? I'm not sure who else should be notified of this case - could you say something at the sockpuppet investigation page?Carcharoth (talk)19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I only wanted the existence of the sockpuppet investigation to be recorded on the evidence page. The actual results can be seen on the page itself, and the usual restrictions on what can be disclosed on-wiki with regards to checkuser still apply as always (I'm sure you knew this already, but I'm making sure there aren't any misunderstandings over what I wrote above.Carcharoth (talk)23:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Last note about this. I've now mentioned the sockpuppet investigation on the evidence talk page and asked the parties to say what went on there, so it is on the record and that is probably all that is needed for now, unless the parties focus on it in their evidence presentations. I should have done that first instead of the original note I left you above. Sorry for any confusion that caused.Carcharoth (talk)23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI,Rollosmokes (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been indef'd since last October, and is in no position to do anything about files that your bot has tagged.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Just noticed that you deleted the above page, and I was wondering why. BLP doesn't really explain much for me right now.:P Cheers,MasterofPuppets -_{Call me MoP! :D}07:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad call on my part, restoring and sending to AfD.Brandon (talk)08:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am also interested, why have you deleted this page. Wiki allows people to write about themselves using a self-published sources, but only when these sources are written by themselves. The first questin was - why editors have deleted almost all true information. And the other - why have you deleted the hole page? We want the world knew about this case and other cases, but here you are breaking your own rules - why?—Precedingunsigned comment added byResident22 (talk •contribs)07:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Brandon, according tothe log you deleted theKibbutz Beth-El article several times. The deletion was noted by a journalist of the Dutch daily Trouw, who wrotean article on Beth El today. He states that the article was removed from the web for unclear reasons ("om onduidelijke redenen verwijderd van het net"). I'm afraid he is right, because I can't find the reasons either. But you may know them and I hope you can tell me more. By the way, the Trouw site has a link to the deleted article... Regards,Fransvannes (talk)07:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was an article which intrinsically featured negative material about a variety of living persons, which failed to meet the requirement for reliable sourcing for such issue, used blogs to attack various individuals, and (as a secondary consideration) one of the prominent people 'attacked' in the article requested its deletion. I'm sure a short, well-sourced, neutral, conservative article applyingthe correct weight to the various issues would be fine, but the extensive rant which was published and deleted previously with the serious deficiency of appropriate sources was definitely not, for want of a better term, 'kosher' with what is required for Wikipedia's standards.Daniel (talk)07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think such considerations are essentialin the log, for transparency's sake.Fransvannes (talk)08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't, because the log comes up whenever anyone looks at the article, and for sensitive issues involving living persons, that is entirely undesirable.Daniel (talk)09:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed, so it seems. The reader shouldn't know what we are doing over here. He has too accept the outcome, and that's it.Fransvannes (talk)17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've "upgraded" (revised) to a Vandalism-only acct after looking at the substance of the deleted articles.Skier Dude (talk)06:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So, should I drop the block? Just looked so "bizarre" with the weird on/off of edits.Skier Dude (talk)06:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. The accounts are entirely unrelated as far as CU says.Brandon (talk)06:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that was another concern, and since the CU shows their unrelated accts, I'll cleanup the talk page & (apologize for theD'oh momentSkier Dude (talk)06:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Brandon, this is an automated message fromSDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added toYANG has been removed. It was removed byDiogenes00 with the following edit summary '(Removing "prod" - see talk page for info)'. Please considerdiscussing your concerns with Diogenes00 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article toAfD for community discussion. Thank you,SDPatrolBot (talk)22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)(Learn how to opt out of these messages)

The edits made using my username were by another person, i was hacked and now i have changed my password, so i do not believe my account should have been blocked, atleast not for this long. If you may, please unblock my account, I have been trying to properly edit pages and am unable to for over a month.—Precedingunsigned comment added by94.128.19.115 (talk)12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is thisUser:Peter Damian? If so, please indicate it clearly rather than in code! If it was, then their nominationWikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) is invalid and should be closed.Fences&Windows23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Check[2]

23:22, 4 December 2008 Thatcher (talk | contribs) unblocked "The Land Surveyor (talk | contribs)" ‎ (second (last) chance, see conditions at User talk:Peter Damian II)

AndWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Banned_user_Peter_Damian_and_sockpuppets

Looks like it. The sock seems to admit his is a sock on his talk page. I am going to add sockpuppet tags to his page. Please remove if I am incorrect Mr. Brandon.Ikip (talk)02:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless New sock of Peter?Ikip (talk)15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll remember to check block logs. Mr Damian needs to find a new hobby methinks, but he has all those enablers on Wikipedia Review.Fences&Windows21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Brandon. Could you please let us know what the status ofFileBot's BRfA is. You seem to have done more than the 100 trial edits. But no editing since the 25th of August. -Kingpin¹³ (talk)07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed Braden from theKansas City Art Institute page, with the notation "subject request". What does that mean? Thanks in advance.Raymondwinn (talk)19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The subject requested, via email, for the mention to be removed. Since she does not have an article there is no reason for her name to be on the list regardless.Brandon (talk)19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure who to ask but since I know only you and NrDg, and NrDg is retired, I thought I'd ask here.My article is Spoken Wikipedia Compliant, and I would like to add my three audio clips to the Spoken Wikipedia clip.Is this okay? or will it result in my Spoken Wikipedia clip and 3 movie audio clips to be nominated for Speedy deletion?User99671 (talk)02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Which audio clips do you want to add?Brandon (talk)19:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You made several changes to theArturo Valenzuela article. You supported your changes by providing a link to anexternal site, to which I cannot access. Can you please tell me what was discussed there or paste the contents of the discussion to the article's Talk page? Thanks.Pristino (talk)04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was an email from the subject viaWP:OTRS, I can not release the contents of the email.Brandon (talk)05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, can you please explain your changes? Thanks.Pristino (talk)02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything specific? They're all corrections from the subject.Brandon (talk)03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty much what I wanted to know.Pristino (talk)14:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, Mr. Valenzuela sent an email to Wikipedia issuing some corrections to his own article. You picked up thisticket and proceeded to make the corrections to the article. If this is so, then why would Mr. Valenzuela correct his father's name toRaimundo Arms Valenzuela when he himself published abiography of his father (after he died) where his father's name is writtenRaimundo Valenzuela Arms? A Google search also shows more matches for the latter version. I want your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy since it is not recommended that I revert OTRS edits.Pristino (talk)00:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: In Spanish it is customary to use two surnames (father's surname + mother's surname). IsArms a second name (as in TommyLee JONES) or a second surname (as in José Luis RODRÍGUEZZAPATERO)? It is highly unlikely thatArms is his first surname, because his son usesValenzuela and notArms as surname.Pristino (talk)00:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He says that Arms is a middle name, not a surname. The link to the biography lists it both ways, which is odd. "Bishop Raimundo Arms Valenzuela: In Memoriam."Brandon (talk)00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very odd, possibly an error. Anyway, thanks for you help.Pristino (talk)07:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first let me thank you for your quick response on my checkuser request. However I am slightly confused by the response you gave. I understand that Tachyonbursts has not edited in quite some time. However, this new suspected sockpuppet of his is, and I believe it is Tachyonbursts. It fits thewp:duck criteria that has been used on his socks in the past, and he has had numerous. Could you please let me know what the end result of this will be, and if he is a sock, if he can be banned again. Thank you. --Tarage (talk)22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I can't do a CU comparison. Somebody else may choose to block on other grounds.Brandon (talk)23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand, I thought it meant something else. Thank you very much. --Tarage (talk)23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you are a relatively new checkuser, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of Brexx's habits: nearly every IP range he edits from has account creation blocked, so he typically uses a proxy to create the new account. He then edits through ranges that normally are in the UAE. The reason I request a checkuser is primarily so that the checkuser can do a proxy check on the IP that created his account, because I know already that his primary IP ranges for editing can't be blocked.—Kww(talk)17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The range I did block was the proxy.Brandon (talk)17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.—Kww(talk)17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what is the point of challenging a source unless you dispute the actual fact? If some notable person like Stalin expresses an opinion, is it not a fact? If sombody said something in a speech, is it not a fact? If in an article about media and chavez most of the west in united in condemning the guy (which is an opinion, afterall), wouldn't it be important to balance that with a prominent official who has express support for the revolution? Are you trying to dispute whether a controvery exists, or whether Lloyd can be documented as having said something that has been widely broadcast?Bachcell (talk)17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It was long ago determined that simply being true is not merits for inclusion. Wikipedia is based on information that is verifiable from neutral reliable sources. Certainly if this controversy is so widespread there would be articles from reliable sources discussing it?Brandon (talk)17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about that SPI page. Are Disiphral/Cinagua/etc actually different people or all just one big sock farm? Also, thanks for your help with that investigation.Triplestopx302:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

They use the same computer and act in the same manner, if that helps.Brandon (talk)02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the global contribs of the socks and some of their paid spam projects, it appears the spam may be crosswiki. Can we get a steward to lock all the accounts? For example, what should be done about all these spam images?[3]Triplestopx302:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

More Crosswiki spam here:

[4][5][6][7][8][9]Triplestopx302:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• The IP isn't being used by either of them and there isn't enough evidence to actually check the accounts.Brandon (talk)19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other possible accounts ? As I said, I was open to the possibility that other accounts were using I.P. 98.207.234.30.ADM (talk)20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope.Brandon (talk)21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brandon... sometimes people add stuff to cases after they were closed or whatever, when you report results it's helpful to say which users you are reporting on. Looking at the caseWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian earlier today PBU was there but CotU wasn't. Maybe my checks weren't needed but it wasn't clear based on your "confirmed". Hope that helps. ++Lar:t/c19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi BrandonCarrimb (talk)

I believe this is from the reference noted. Do you have other information, or do I need a stronger reference, in your view?

Dreadarthur (talk)02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just to prevent ambiguity, could you confirm that it isyour determination as a checkuser that Nickhh is that IP? Thanks, Sandstein 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brandon, in regard to this I am wondering if you will clarify your reasoning here, and whether any other CU's have looked at it. It is not clear to me why this IP would have been checked for the material it removed on this biography, but when there is also past vandalism on the IP and the editor denies that it was him, I would think there should be some clarification as to whether there could be error. Thank you,Mackan79 (talk)17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked the IP on a hunch based on the topic area, edit summaries and comments made. The IP and Nickhh share a common topic area, IP, user agent and edited a few minutes apart. That is as clear as CU ever gets.Brandon (talk)18:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps explain the finding. I agree the edits were hunch-worthy; I've seen people call for a higher standard but in truth I think checking these types of drive-by reversions is probably a good thing for the area. Regards,Mackan79 (talk)07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"A hunch", based on two edits from an IP address, to an article that I have not been involved in for over a year? Using language, or rather spelling, I don't think I've ever used? Nor does it explain how the IP address or the article edits came to your attention in the first place (not that it matters as such, but it's still odd). Again - whether checkuser data shows some kind of connection or not - it's not my IP address as far as I can tell. And reviewing those edits and mine, they are not "a few minutes apart" - their edits came over half an hour after I made one edit to a wholly unrelated article. Anyway, as I've said on my talk page, I'm not equipped to debate the technical side of all this and I'm not sure I'm that bothered two days down the line. --Nickhh (talk)17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. I used an outdated web site I found as a source for historical information about this radio station. I could say I just heard it, but that's original research. Other than that, I don't know how to source the information.

But it's not spam.Vchimpanzee · talk ·contributions ·14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was cleaning up after a spammer which was adding that website so I just removed all links. The information appears to be coming out of some database though.Brandon (talk)15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's not ideal for Wikipedia, but I believe it's an outdated site that was accurate at one time.Vchimpanzee · talk ·contributions ·17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the information is coming out of a database and being stuck on the site.Brandon (talk)22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, another web site appeared to have the same thing, according to the search engine, but I couldn't get to it. What we don't know is where that database is. I assume that the information was accurate at one point and we don't need to search for it to make it acceptable. I know from original research the facts are right.Vchimpanzee · talk ·contributions ·20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide the sockmaster behindUser talk:Nyciscool so that I can close his unblock request. Thanks! --Jayron3203:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be related toAccuweather123 (talk ·contribs) andApbiologyrocks (talk ·contribs), along with some pretty recent anon trolling. –Luna Santin (talk)03:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that an endorsement by a checkuser based on checkuser results? If so, I would like to have something firm that says so in my decline... --Jayron3205:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just querying your deletion of this page. Not challenging in any way, just a friendly inquiry/enquiry. (Also I really must learn which is the correct spelling of that word.)Manning (talk)01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also FYI see thisthread at AN. CheersManning (talk)01:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Manning - the correct spelling is inquiry just FYI.Until It Sleeps^{T •C}02:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah - thanks Sleep. Brandon, ignore this question, Prodego updated me. CheersManning (talk)02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the sockpuppeteer? Are there any other sock puppets? The user claims he was trying to have aclean start, so this information is relevant.עוד מישהוOd Mishehu10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't at all obvious from your comment whether you checkedHavingatypicalemotionalupset (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki)—Kww(talk)04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Brandon. I noticed that you indefinitely full protectedGilad Atzmon back in April per an OTRS ticket (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2009041510025323). I was just wondering if you think it would be acceptable to unprotect the page now, or if we should wait a while more.NW(Talk)23:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is in just as poor shape now as when I protected it. I'd say leave it.Brandon (talk)01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that on 20 August 2009 you taggedTemplate:Filmrationale andTemplate:Filmr as deprecated. I have two questions.

1. Could you please show me the discussion that preceded this?
2. Why the deprecation text ofTemplate:Filmrationale says "Filmr" and not "Filmrationale"? Perhaps that was a mistake?Debresser (talk)01:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Filmrationale is a subst'd plain text template that should not be used as it makes parsing metadata from images impossible. Filmr is a old and outdated template that serves the same purpose as of Film cover fur (which does it correctly). Marking them as deprecated is common sense, unless you have any objections there is no need for discussion.Brandon (talk)01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if you were working the backlog for deprecated templates they need to be switched over by hand manually. For the time being though they should not be used for new images.Brandon (talk)02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix to{{Filmrationale}}.

I noticed that{{Filmrationale}} istranscluded 1688 times on files (not including 3 times on other pages). Why do you say it is subst'd?

BTW,{{Filmr}} is transcluded on 260 files.{{Boilerplate music cover fur}} on 77 files.Debresser (talk)02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, to the point. Your have been reverted at{{Filmr}}. I have no problem with the deprecation, because these two templates are actually very similar, and I am willing to carry it out, but please talk it over withShshshsh first.

Likewise I feel fine with the deprecaton of{{Boilerplate music cover fur}} in favor of{{Album cover fur}}, and am willing to carry it out. IfShshshsh won't object, hopefully.

Only the deprecation of{{Filmrationale}} in favor of a template that is so much not like it, does not seem right to me. And what do you mean that "it makes parsing metadata from images impossible"?Debresser (talk)03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Update:Shshshsh has posted on my talkpage, and has no objections any more. So afterYom kippur I'll work on{{Filmr}} and{{Album cover fur}}, but I still am not happy with{{Filmrationale}}.Debresser (talk)10:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since you mentioned the backlog. The common procedure to deprecated templates is to have an intermediate stage, in which the templated is tagged with{{Tdeprecated}} using<noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. That allows for a certain period in which editors can get used to the new template and begin moving instances of the old template to the new one. Later, these noinclude tags are removed. Following this gradual procedure we avoid having hundreds or more pages showing up inCategory:Pages using deprecated templates.Debresser (talk)10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you have not answered me about{{Filmrationale}}, I have added noinclude tags to the template, till such time as its status will be clarified.Debresser (talk)13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me.Brandon (talk)04:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I finished eliminating all instances of{{Boilerplate music cover fur}}. That was not an easy job, because of certain differences between the templates.Debresser (talk)18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I finished eliminating all instances of{{Filmr}}. That was easy, but there were more of them. Note that as soon as I finished, I changed{{Filmr}}, so that future instance will be more like{{Film cover fur}}.Debresser (talk)01:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RegardingWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721, is there any chance that a rangeblock would be feasible to stop the vandalism?NW(Talk)11:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brandon,User:MC10 has made an unblock request atUser talk:MC10. He says that the socks you found/blocked are not his, but belong to his brothers who use the same IP in the house. Could you take a look/comment there? Thanks,either way (talk)15:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that you bannedUser:Jimsteele9999 after a sockpuppet investigation. It was thought that this was a sock puppet forUser: Jessica Liao. Did you realise that the ban has now been overturned byUser: Steven Zhang? I have come across Jessica in the past and am very familiar with her editing style. Jimsteele9999 is displaying very similar editing behaviour to Jessica. His/her first edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Resource_Room is most unusual for a new editor. New editors are usually unaware of the labyrinthine layers of Wikipedia policy. This is a typical Jessica-style edit. I've known her in the past take the similar unusual step of requesting an article creation which is something very few people do. Was there sufficient evidence to overturn the ban?Dahliarose (talk)13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look, and I unblocked based on my conclusions. Namely, that they are Unrelated by technical data.J.delanoy^gabs_adds22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Brandon. Since you closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination).Cunard (talk)08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments on SPI case. My concern is that proxies are being used. This individual is familar with SPIs from his submission of Mwalla sockpuppeteer so knows all of the tricks. Otherwise colleagues or friends may be editing on his behalf. What do I do in such a case? Also which accounts did you check ip address on? Is it worth checking all of them?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I rechecked the ones I didn't do originally. Every one of the accounts varies on more than one variable, I don't see any technical connection at all.Brandon (talk)22:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that Brandon. Do ip addresses resolve back to a pharmaceutical company, perhaps different devisions? Are they known proxy ips? They are definitely sockpuppets, certainly mutual monarch. Did you see my evidence where mutual monarch contacts me on my talk page in less than an hour of me filing sock report and tagging their account as possible sockpuppet? They hardly ever edit wikipedia and last edits were in July (apart from 2 in early September). I guess if it can't be proven I will just have to put up with the sockpuppets?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they are meatpuppets rather than sockpuppets? If this is the case then I guess there is nothing that can be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are escalating now with user Skrewler now edit warring, I am under attack by sockpuppets here and it has been ongoing on and off for months now. What can be done?Also did you check the last ip used by Paul gene and the registration (or first ip address) of The Sceptical Chymist? Is it the same or the same as the ip address listed in the SPI investigation that I filed? The Sceptical Chymist could have changed ip companies since then which is why this may need to be done to identify them as the same person. Sorry for bothering you. I think that we are coming to the end of our conversation soon, I know that you are busy. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One last comment, I think that you should also look out for an ip address starting with 70.137.xxx.xxx as well. That editor used to follow me around before on benzo articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing out of the ordinary at all. All North American residential IPs with no sign of being proxies.Brandon (talk)03:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe the ip addresses don't match, but take mutual monarch for example. At21:03, 18 October 2009 I add a tag to mutual monarch's account, then 13 minutes later21:15, 18 October 2009 they reply on my talk page denying being a sockpuppet. If you checkcontributions, they very rarely log on, at least on that account but yet they conincidently replied within 13 minutes of my flagging of their account. I suspect that they have a main account and have their sockpuppet watch listed. If these people are not sockpuppets of The Sceptical Chymist could they be sockpuppets of other editors? Is it possible to search the database for other accounts sharing the same ip(s)? However, I accept and appreciate that if there is no technical evidence to validate my suspicions that the case will have to be closed. Thank you for your time in this case. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k?23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Noindexed pages