2726:, the one who had banned him, and admitted to the admin that he was that I.P. and had only used it when he would accidentally forget to log-in. AGK had promised the user that he would remove the SSP banner on MarkRae's page, ("He said that he would remove the sockpuppet banner on 30 August because he felt that I'd 'learned my lesson', but I guess he's decided not but AGK retired before he could "). MarkRae didn't know if he should've deleted the SSP banner or not, since the admin had retired before he could, so I decided to go bold and remove it myself. However, recently, the user who had reported MarkRae for sockpuppetry has reverted my edit and re-added the SSP banner. I want to ask you guys this: If an admin has said that they would remove the banner but retired and left Knowledge (XXG) before they could do so, would it be correct of me to go bold and remove the banner myself? I was wondering if I was able to remove it, or if MarkRae could, or if an admin could remove it themselves. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
406:(Checkuser can be negative even if they are socks and vice-versa it isn't 100%). You have the IP information, so the checkuser isn't required to do such analysis, and the checkuser looking at an IP won't be able to discover related IP information. I'd have to ask what you think the value of the exercise it though? As above it can't determine an identity of who it is, it can't predict future IPs etc. so what value is knowing they are all the same person? In reality if the IPs are individually engaging in blockable behaviour, then just get them blocked as and when they arise. If it really gets out of hand then reports to ISPs are possible. --
1866:
advocate of sanctions. In all cases he/she is making the accusation against editors who are disagreeing with him/her. It is part of his/her bullying of editors to suppress all dissent from his/her viewpoint. It seem to me there should be some sort of abuse of process sanction against such editors (he/she is very careful to not infringe any policy). I will produce whatever evidence is necessary to prove I am not a sock puppet, but I find it absurd and disappointing that there does not appear to be any recourse in this or any other process that I can find. Any advice.
2762:. The editor's relatively short edit history and quick contributions to cats and AfDs to me suggests the possibility of either a) other IPs (in which case, c'est la vi) or b) perhaps a registered account. I don't think a checkuser request to "fish" for such an account would be approved -- or am I wrong? IP editors' comments at AfD I believe are generally discounted, so maybe this really isn't a big deal. But, anyone who spends more time than I looking into checkuser/sockpuppet issues want to weigh in? --
287:
editor, whilst blocked, then it would have been from a different IP. As a result, whilst a suspected sock puppet case might provide sufficient evidence that the editor had been abusing multiple accounts to avoid a block (and thus deserved to have the block reinstated, and / or extended), the only definitive way to prove it would be a check-user, which would presumably show different IP's, and thus unable to conclude definitively one way or the other. Hope that helps!
22:
823:, a recent checkuser request has confirmed the status of a couple of previously unconfirmed socks from a now-closed case. It would be sensible to post this information on the closed case, but closed cases are not supposed to be edited or reopened. I added the info to the the talk page for the case, as instructed, but I don't know if any admins watch for new talk pages for closed sockpuppetry cases. --
3110:
2882:
2929:
2369:
Yeah, E-man and I had the same trouble a while back. We contacted the bot owner and he just told us to double check we were doing it right. So, when we both can be bothered to clear out the backlogs, I just get E-man to archive them manually. He didn't have any trouble archiving; just chucked them in
1764:
for nuisance edits. The user name is in red in the history yet his edit was allowed. He also edits under several IPs one of which I believe to be 99.1.99.177. As usual, when I tried to enter this directly on the prior page, my previewed template was in red so I abandoned that and tried going to "some
672:
I do agree that it makes more sense to do it that way, if admins are going to start at the top. Also agree about clearing the backlog. I worked with an admin a few days ago to help clear some cases, but there's a limit to what I can do, given that I'm not yet an administrator. I'm hoping we can get a
275:
Let me give an example. An editor is blocked for a year. During that year a number of very short lived accounts appear editing the same topics as the blocked editor and in the same style. After the block expires the originally blocked editor continues editing, in some cases making very very similar
160:
It just takes too much effort to compile a sock report, even for the simplest cases. I have been put off reporting cases in the past because I know from experience that I will need to devote a fair chunk of time to getting it completed. Here are some suggestions (but I have no idea how to do any of
1577:
If the accounts accused of sock puppetry have both been editing, during any period involving 500 edits or more (from each), there is a method I have discovered for proving or refuting sock puppetry with high certainty. This is still confidential, but I'd be willing to look at pairs of such accounts,
1439:
How about pages that are not on
Knowledge (XXG) but the internet, and that no longer exist? Is it enough for an accuser to say they saw it and a bunch of their buddies saw it? How about saying a nickname on a non wikipedia site and a nickname on a different sites forum are the same people? How about
1217:
Please try to read in context. He says that he/she did not read the opening evidence that discussed what proved the IP was mine, because I openly stated the IP was mine, meaning there was no need to prove or disprove that. The user read all the relevant information. I suggest you go to the AN/I now,
2342:
Can someone with more knowledge of... whatever it is that I need more knowledge of... figure out why? I've tried to fix one and it still won't archive. Bot isn't on strike because recent reports I've closed myself get archived within 5 minutes. The only clues I have (and they may be red herrings)
1618:
I find the use of these indicators confusing, because I associate them so strongly with
Checkuser that when I see them on SSP I think a Checkuser has been run. If the closing admin confines their comments to the "conclusions" section and the only comments in that section are from the closing admin,
1472:
must go against the rules on how these cases should be judged. None of the so called evidence happens to be on
Knowledge (XXG). None of it can be checked because it doesn't exist. Yet the person who judged this claim said the evidence was so strong it linked me to another user who had not edited in
474:
request you mention the use of URL cloaking services, I assume these too are being added to the spam blacklist? (There should be no need for anyone to use them when externally linking from wikipedia) if they are new and unusual services they may inadvertantly be doing us a favour tracking them down
469:
Would that prove a great deal? Some user-agent strings are going to be fairly common so would be prone to false positives, it might add some weight to them being different people (but that's very easy to spoof from the same machine, and may vary if someone was using different internet cafes (say)).
426:
on those IPs, then a checkuser could potentially be worthwhile (whether such a check would be run, of course, depends on circumstances -- I wouldn't hold your breath). Most obvious uses of checkuser are out the window, once you know the IP. As MER-C mentioned, tools like whois can be very useful in
1712:
I am responsible for the multiple accounts (Upward15 being one of them) making some of the same changes – repeatedly. I got carried away and I abused my privileges. I know some of what I did was inappropriate. I’m sorry. I feel bad and I will abstain from editing
Knowledge (XXG). I feel admonished
639:
I try to drop by when I can - I cleared a handful yesterday, and intend to clear a few more today, if I get the time. I think a large part of the problem could be that (i) new cases are listed at the top, (ii) when there's a backlog, it looks immensely daunting. I think people could be inclined to
405:
Well CheckUser isn't magic, it can't look over the internet and see who is using the computer, checkusers use a combination of information (the biggest being the IP addresses of editors with usernames which aren't visible to everyone else) to give some technical weight to if they are the same user
1865:
Being the potential target of a false and abusive sock puppet accusation has caused me to look at the process. It seems very unfair, one sided and, as demonstrated at least by my case, open for abuse. This is at least the 4th sock puppet case with the accuser as either the initiator or a strong
95:
I am a professor at a large state school in the U.S., and am starting a research project on how companies use
Knowledge (XXG) to influence public perception. Is there a way to get a comprehensive list of all sockpuppets that have been blocked on Knowledge (XXG)? I have been looking around, but,
2572:
was started in August, when some of Barry's other puppets were created, and has been mostly dormant, but has now jumped in with mass reversions of the same exact material as Barry. Torricelli01 deleted sourced material, failed to use the talk page and used language identical to Barry in his edit
1957:
I don't think everyone approaches it the same way. Some day, Soccermeko will be back, and I'll report him at the 12th generation of his socking report. I really won't be paying much attention to what IP address he is editing from or what silly name he's cloaked himself in this time ... I'll just
1382:? We have a new (self-confessed) sock-puppet everyday, who has claimed they "will not stop until their edits are kept". This individual has already spoiled an important mediation process, and has inserted several copy-vio images onto Knowledge (XXG), so I think this warrents a priority of sorts.
286:
It isn't too late to do so, but whether or not there would be any merit to it, I think, boils down to IP addresses. When blocked, the original editor's underlying IP should have been blocked, and account creation also blocked. That means that if the new accounts were created from by the original
1736:
there is currently efforts to gut the article down to nothing and remove anything at all that is not sourced to her official biography. It is not a high traffic article, but recently several newly created accounts have started reverting changes and saying the same thing basically "no discussion
132:
Basically, wikipedia is based on a
Western, individualist model of personality and as such is absurdly infected with binary thinking: people have no nuance: they think of the strangers they encounter as either "good guys" (envisioning them in most cases as members of the dominant class in their
1265:
This is beyond the pale. He said that he only read some of the comments and did not look at the underlying evidence. That evidence was key to the argument over whether you intentionally misled people. At the least, an admin with experience at SSP should have taken a look at the evidence and
722:
This is quite a daunting task to initiate and while there are some guidelines, it's not completely clear what constitutes good evidence vs. so-so vs. bad. I'm mostly wondering if there is a good example of a well prepared sock puppet case that one could use as a guideline. Thanks.
1355:
Sorry & thanks. I see what I did wrong now: I wrote puppet instead of suspect. Might I suggest the actual text be available on the edit page here for direct copying to avoid hand-copying errors. The edit page gives only a transclusion to a page with no link that I can find.
1885:
Does anyone have a tool or efficient method of analyzing editing by time of day and day of week? I've tried to put information into a spreadsheet but have found it hard to get Excel to parse the times, to convert them into datecode, and then to do analysis. Any ideas?
2277:
Hi, I noticed that this page has a backlog notice. I'm an admin and would like to become more involved but I'm not exactly sure what I could do to help. Is there some sort of clerk role or way that someone can start getting their feet wet by helping out? Regards,
388:
Whilst a RFCU would clearly be a waste of time in determining whether the IPs are related (you already have the information that checkusers use to decide this), a RFCU can be used to discover whether the batch of IPs are also related to any registered accounts.
1574:, the incident report noticeboard, to get some attention from independent administrators. Be sure to remain civil, to assume that if a mistake has been made, it was done in good faith, and to stay focused on the narrow issue of the sock puppetry allegation.
133:
community, usually white
Americans but perhaps sometimes as high-caste Hindus when the member is from India), or unspeakable "trolls" (does anyone see the racism implicit in this term, which has much to do with early-mediaeval displacement of the Celts?)
2146:
for
English Knowledge (XXG) and then go through the list of User statistics from the highest number of edits on down, you will come across an amazing string of blocked, banned, or no longer editing users and others who fall into such a category. --
1569:
page. You'd start by discussing it with the admin. He or she should also help you to pursue an appeal, if you ask, perhaps suggesting another admin to review the case, or you can find one yourself. If the matter is urgent, you can start a report on
1713:
and I’m sorry. I will leave a similar message on
Scarian’s page. I hope that my mistakes won’t harm my co-workers ability to participate on Knowledge (XXG). I am responsible for the multiple accounts and I take full responsibility. Thank you.
2350:
Also, it might be easier to manually archive them than figure out what's wrong, but I'm scared I'll mess it up. Is there anything involved in the archiving beyond simply removing them from the page? A list I need to update, for example?
1324:
in accordance with the instructions given (see the history for what I tried). I totally failed to get the template to work, & gave up, just entering my own words instead. Could someone revise the explanation so it's clear what to do?
657:
I think that the comment one section above is on the right track, incidentally - perhaps it would be better to list old cases at the top, rather than the bottom. I think that might go some way to getting them dealt with more quickly...?
258:
My apologies over the last few weeks for my bots which have mysteriously been taken off my crontab! (I'll have to blame someone from the
Toolserver for that..) They will start to archive again from this notice onwards. Thank you. —
2484:
Just as a heads up, the RFCU/SSP merger will be going live on January 10th. The cases on this page will be moved to a subpage until they are handled and new cases will be filed using the new process. The new page can can be found
352:, but RFCU is geared towards reports of registered user accounts as sock masters, not IP addresses. The RFCU template is not designed for entering an IP address as the sock master. Does RFCU take IP addresses as sock masters? -
497:. I agree with you that the use of url hiding services on wp seems generally undesirable. However, I seem to recall a long-ago discussion somewhere on the issue of blacklisting such services that failed to reach consensus. -
1086:
Well, I know Shalom edits SSP quite a bit, and looks through many of the reports here. I trust their judgment. While a non-admin closing a report may be out of process, did he do something incorrect? If not, just let it be.
276:
edits to those made by the suspected sock-puppets. Is it too late to now make an entry in "suspected sock puppets", in order to possibly have the original block extended if the evidence is considered enough for judgement? --
164:
1. Above the "Start a Case" button, have an edit box for the puppetmaster name rather than just expecting the user to edit a text line. This will give a visual clue that a name must be entered before pressing the button.
592:
It seems like a lot of admins are taking cases from the top of the list where the cases are the oldest at the bottom. I suggest that the page is augmented to show admins they need to go to the bottom of the pile first.
1637:
I agree with Akhilleus. They're so associated with checkuser that it's ingrained in my consciousness (and I'm not the only one) that it implies you did a checkuser and determined "likely", "confirmed", or "unrelated".
172:
3. Automatically add the needed tags to the suspects talk pages. There is no reason that the reporter needs to do this manually. However, a warning to the reporter that this is going to happen might be in order.
168:
2. After, completing the report, automatically add it to the current cases. I can't think of any circumstances where you would create a report and then not list it. This eliminates one step for the originator.
1409:
Can anyone just make up stuff, get a few buddies together and post the same nonsense and get someone labeled a sockpuppet? Is any real proof required? Do the people looking at these cases look at the evidence?
123:
Suppose 20 employees of a small firm know that it's in violation of labor or environmental laws. They collectively sign up and post the facts, which are NPOV within the community in which the company operates.
1737:
needed" and are all putting in the same version. There are also several raw IPs that appear to step in when the user accounts are close to 3RR. Is there enough material there to pursue this for sockpuppeting?
802:
2753:
are almost certainly the same person (based on contribs; IP addresses don't actually resolve geographically, but there're always other possible explanations for that). The editor's !voted under these IPs at
569:
I have been accused of sockpuppetry. Is it not permitted for the accuser to ask other users to provide evidence against the accusee? Please reply on my talkpage if you can, but right here is OK I guess. --
2755:
640:
drop by, scroll down, find one they look like they can knock on the head quickly (I'm guilty of that myself) then get rid of it. The bigger ones, or the ones further down the list, then tend to languish.
1657:
Agree with the above - since in some instances an SSP case does progress to a CU but within the original SSP sub-page and without a separate CU being opened, there is considerable scope for confusion.
2075:(for example) on a talk page. Is the latter only if there already is such a category. Or do you put it on as your first comment to the suspected sock puppet?? Carol Moore 17:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
2255:
Would it be possible to remind people to use a template to format users in doing reports to be one that includes the CU link? Someone used user5 instead of Socklinks ... Might save a step or two. ++
1941:
I was thinking the exact same thing when I created one yesterday, I ended up creating a new report which I then realized was back to front and it then had to be manually linked to the old one(s).
767:
2442:
I also encounter similar experience. The bot owner's response was horrible. He denies that his bot is not functioning properly on some cases and instead, ask us to verify that we didn't subst
2072:
1218:
as I am becoming increasingly tired of your persistence, and would like this to be dealt with now. If not, then move on. You and Jack Forbes are tiring the entire community with your antics.
220:. Ankur0412 has posted a message of support on Pvsamrat's talk page. I think they are possible sock puppets of each other. Would someone experienced in these matters take the case up please?
2389:
My brain finally popped out of idle, and I realized I just needed to look at the bot's contribs to see what needed to be done. I've removed the three reports manually, and archived them to
1425:
There has to be some sort of proof, such as diffs, that can be shown to link an account as a sockpuppet. Just a bunch of people pointing fingers saying "S/he is a sock puppet" isn't enough.
2390:
2316:
2094:
since early Oct 2008 - see . The process for reporting suspected sockpuppets looks as bad as tax return, and I suspect Consist is relying this to get away with continuing disruption. --
843:
820:
538:
Range too big to block, take to RFCU (which has not been filed as far as I can tell), to sort this out. Or, go to ANI and ask for range blocks (I know too little about them to do one.
1913:. Here, I start my report with the "master" account, which may be several years old, and which I may not even be aware of. I file my report, it's backwards. In this case, I'm filing
908:
2053:
3071:
adding unsourced materials and also uploading copyrighted images at Commons. Wikimedia, which later got deleted. On the same day at the blocking of Ethan haden731, another editor
1838:
Hi SQL, those links to userpages are just names. The editor seems to have just created names and did not fill any information on the page. If you click on the discussion page of
1454:
Sockpuppetry only refers to Knowledge (XXG), again backed up with evidence on Knowledge (XXG) itself. What happens on different sites really doesn't apply to Knowledge (XXG).
2354:
Last question: does anybody watch this talk page? I see lots of questions and no answers; are they being dealt with on user talk pages, or am I talking to the void here? --
1914:
2007:
both have same user page. Neither has edited in a long time, so I don't know whether this is something that still needs to be addressed. Maybe it can be handled just like
470:
As I asked above, what value do you perceive in confirming these are indeed the same real person? In all practical senses assuming they are seems fine. As an aside in the
2530:
1785:
1379:
452:
349:
38:
1765:
other" page where I seemed to be encouraged to do a similar search for sockpuppets which didn't turn up anything but still couldn't enter template. I'm stuck. What now?
2326:
216:
for me. They have both been active creating articles which have been deleted as non-notable/spam etc, and recreating them when deleted. I have posted about this on
1070:
decided to arbitrarily close the case, and archive it, while admitting to not even reading the full discussion on the page, and worse still, admitting to not even
1030:. It seems to me he carries a beef with me since I reverted his incorrect edit on 02:48, February 27, 2008 about the 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team.
2415:
The most logical thing would be to ask the bots owner again, but, seeing as I didn't get the greatest of responses last time, I vote for you to do the asking ;-)
1599:
739:
643:
I think there'd be a lot to be said for completely clearing the backlog - that would make it much less daunting, I think. I'll be rolling up my sleeves later...
1023:
2336:
1063:
127:
This "meat puppet" rule neatly silences all but one. Then, of course, people who instinctively suck up to wealth and power can pile on to the whistle-blower.
1842:
you can find the editor was blocked. The other 2 accounts have been created today itself back-2-back in time and have been used to pursue the same motive as
2533:. As you can see, he has already used Sycorax and Prospero in his puppet names, as well as numerous puppets ending with 2 digits (01, 02, 03, 20, 14, etc.)
2177:
2343:
is that in all three reports, when I first clicked on "edit this page", the SSPa tag at the top didn't show; I had to load the page, do a cache purge, and
2719:
2049:
1109:
Yes, he admitted to not looking at the opening evidence. That's very poor behaviour. I think, unless the case is reviewed by an admin, I will bring it to
3068:
511:
OK in the dim distant past I've certainly listed them for the meta blacklist and had them added, I guess things must have changed. (Tinyurl etc. are on
2657:
99:
Any other thoughts you might have on ways of identifying paid users, or Knowledge (XXG) articles edited by paid users, would be appreciated. Thanks!
866:
938:. He has been editing article I have created almost exclusively. For a small portion of the list of articles he has done this to see the following.
1340:
I added it for you. For future reference add: {{subst:socksuspectnotice|1=LuisGomez111}} ~~~~, changing the name to the sockpuppeter in question.
616:
a few times, but it didn't help much. This has been severely backlogged for over a week, with some cases still needing attention from weeks ago.
738:
Anything is fine, as long as it provides diffs and is likely to be truthful. An excellent current SSP case to model your potential one upon, is
2683:
2123:. This will prevent the category from showing up on reports such as Knowledge (XXG):Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Best wishes, -
2035:
982:. Please not that he did not mark any other NBA All-Star games as stubs (presumably because I didn't create them). Here are more examples.
3060:
2624:
1714:
2990:
No user page exists, and he is nominating AfD. This is very suspicious. How does he already know so much about Knowledge (XXG)? I suspect
1958:
recognize the compulsion to inflate Nicole Wray's status and inability to conjugate verbs, and say "Damn it, it's Soccermeko back again".
687:
630:
2232:
Virgil is a clever fellow. His older versions were powerful enough, actually, to be of quite some... dunno what. Worry? Use? Interest? ++
3082:
I think they are sockpuppets of each other because both edit Knowledge (XXG) from their mobiles and uploaded the copyrighted images for
1040:
2909:
I want to list a WP:SSP user named "Amritballia" and not able to list it. Please allow me to edit and list the suspected user. Thanks.
2332:
2322:
2312:
315:
but it seems that the suspected sockpuppeteer name is not allowed to be corrected. Therefore the suspected sockpuppeteer name stays as
3175:
3034:
1520:
As did another editor, but he was not declared a sockpuppet. So all the evidence required is that you make 2 edits like someone else?
516:
476:
407:
3157:
1887:
1136:
look at the evidence, and assessed the case. Your refusal to listen to the decision places you in the same position as Jack Forbes.
1922:
749:
3072:
2170:
1925:, at which point, I think it's too late. Just a little annoyance for me, but which rears its head whenever I do need to use SSP.
3020:
2526:
2071:
A point to clarify on the page. Also clarify the difference between using {subst:uw-socksuspect|1=SOMExUSERxHERE} and putting
1226:
1144:
2521:
for sockpuppetry. He said he would come back through sockpuppets, using whatever connection he could find. He focusses on the
2840:
2800:
2643:
2166:
999:
2811:
We already have WP:SUSPSOCK and WP:SSP; is another required? And why is WP:RSP a sensible redirect for this page? — Martin
422:
If all of the suspected socks are IPs, there's not much a checkuser could do. If there's any question of whether there are
1932:
673:
few admins to work together here and get rid of this backlog. Maybe in the future, it can be kept at a reasonable level.
2117:
2042:
1909:
Reporting SSPs is backwards and non-intuitive from expected. When I report to AIV, or any other noticeboard, I report
882:
787:
2226:
3205:
2090:
has been blocked indefinitely, but a person claiming to be consist and using a range of IPs has been a nuisance at
1491:
hard evidence in the case you posted, though. There are diffs of suspiciously similar behavior listed in the case.
766:
FYI: This is one of the pages that surpasses the limit on "expensive parser functions" and is therefore listed in
3116:
2888:
1378:
I realise there are alot of cases, but can someone with experience (perhaps even checkuser status) take a look at
778:
in the sockpuppet reports. January 2008 archive has "Expensive parser function count: 532/100" for instance :D --
2264:
2241:
1094:
660:
645:
289:
50:
3064:
1821:
1793:
1718:
1459:
1430:
493:
available as evidence, depending on what is recorded in the logs. I'd rather not go into the details here per
136:
Therefore, by labeling a poster's friend a "meat puppet" you've neatly avoided having to address their point.
2850:
I've disabled the request. You could take it to RfD if you like. The redirect is completely unused. — Martin
1044:
235:
Think I've managed to do it, but the instructions are not clearly written and seem daunting to first timers.
3191:
2731:
1361:
1330:
901:
870:
853:
728:
2347:
edit the page; and that all three have either a number at the end of the page name, or a (Xth) at the end.
3171:
3028:
2283:
1555:
1525:
1478:
1445:
1415:
1321:
975:
969:
963:
957:
520:
480:
411:
334:
2994:
for sockpuppetry. If anybody can find evidence for this user or a different user, I would be grateful. —
1219:
1137:
3009:
That is quite a stretch you make there. I see absolutely no behavior in common between those two users.
2999:
2458:
1986:
1893:
1694:
1608:
1019:
437:
2759:
2750:
2746:
2687:
1469:
1011:
323:
308:
66:
743:
3076:
2783:
2695:
2222:
1742:
879:
146:
3010:
2985:
213:
3146:
3043:
3014:
2490:
2128:
2061:
1851:
1817:
1789:
1647:
1624:
1492:
1455:
1426:
1067:
819:
The procedure for reporting new information regarding closed cases is not clear to me. As noted at
682:
625:
209:
1788:. Please forgive me - I haven't tried to fix the mistake for fear of making things worse. Cheers,
54:
3187:
3091:
2957:
2916:
2838:
2798:
2727:
2639:
1871:
1843:
1839:
1770:
1682:
1357:
1326:
1089:
935:
724:
316:
312:
179:
56:
874:
849:
494:
3222:
3195:
3181:
3150:
3095:
3048:
3003:
2961:
2947:
2920:
2862:
2845:
2823:
2805:
2771:
2735:
2699:
2672:
2648:
2613:
2597:
2507:
2495:
2462:
2425:
2402:
2380:
2363:
2287:
2267:
2244:
2203:
2160:
2132:
2103:
2065:
2024:
1990:
1967:
1950:
1935:
1896:
1875:
1855:
1825:
1811:
1797:
1774:
1746:
1722:
1663:
1652:
1628:
1612:
1587:
1559:
1529:
1495:
1482:
1463:
1449:
1434:
1419:
1399:
1365:
1346:
1334:
1307:
1294:
1240:
1196:
1158:
1119:
1100:
1080:
1048:
920:
911:). So therefore; could somebody please archive the above Sock-puppet request? Thanks! Regards,
887:
832:
809:
791:
755:
732:
705:
690:
667:
652:
633:
602:
582:
559:
524:
506:
484:
464:
442:
415:
398:
383:
361:
338:
296:
280:
265:
244:
229:
198:
150:
110:
3167:
3024:
2991:
2609:
2593:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2537:
2421:
2398:
2376:
2359:
2279:
2199:
2099:
2076:
1929:
1551:
1521:
1474:
1441:
1411:
1290:
987:
939:
931:
594:
571:
502:
460:
394:
357:
330:
240:
225:
2478:
1659:
1571:
1110:
701:
663:
648:
471:
292:
3083:
2995:
2944:
2553:
2453:
2151:
2015:
2008:
1981:
1946:
1890:
1757:
1689:
1672:
1603:
1007:
1003:
945:
916:
828:
699:
with a suggestion that we change the order around to see what people's views are generally.
552:
429:
277:
106:
52:
21:
2937:
2829:
2789:
2679:
2486:
2181:
379:
and other similar tools. The whole point of checkuser is to find which IPs are being used.
217:
2767:
2691:
2541:
2522:
2218:
1738:
1392:
783:
142:
2142:
I haven't seen this before in other article's I've looked at. If you enter "Marriage" at
1566:
696:
613:
1906:
I'm sure this must have come up before, but if not /shrug, I'll still make my noises...
3217:
3142:
3038:
2857:
2818:
2557:
2549:
2545:
2124:
2057:
1847:
1640:
1620:
1341:
1304:
1233:
1151:
995:
773:
675:
618:
512:
3087:
2953:
2912:
2833:
2793:
2668:
2631:
2502:
2446:
2301:
2260:
2237:
1963:
1867:
1809:
1766:
1583:
1191:
1114:
1075:
1015:
598:
2518:
Barryispuzzled has returned with multiple sock puppets. He was already indefblocked
2143:
427:
determining potential ISP relationships or geographical similarities between IPs. –
2715:
2711:
2604:
2589:
2416:
2394:
2371:
2355:
2195:
2095:
2087:
2004:
2000:
1974:
1926:
1733:
1286:
1027:
498:
456:
390:
353:
251:
236:
221:
2113:
When creating a category for a sockpuppet or suspected sockpuppet, please include
1550:
How can someone appeal the findings of an admin who looked at a sockpuppet case?
2941:
2185:
2148:
2012:
1942:
991:
912:
824:
541:
376:
102:
1074:
at the opening evidence. I really feel that's a little (a lot) unacceptable. --
2763:
2529:
articles, deletes material and tries to start disputes. Here is his sock case
2091:
1386:
983:
951:
779:
380:
372:
329:
Users should be allowed to correct this to the proper suspected sockpuppteer.
3079:) start editing and also uploading copyrighted images at Commons.Wikimedia.
3213:
3186:
Is it important to have short descriptions on ancient unused project pages?
2853:
2814:
2188:) and is back on the controversial family that he has created for the genus
2034:
It would be very helpful if persons creating sockpuppet categories (such as
3158:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Boilerplate text#Protected edit request on 10 May 2020
1578:
and could intercede if it looks like an incorrect finding has been made. --
907:..but then I realized that I should have filed a CU instead, which I did (
2664:
2256:
2233:
2190:
1959:
1804:
1761:
1579:
806:
307:
When opening 2nd case for a user, the new page treats it as though it is
2489:. Any comments, concerns, or suggestions are welcome on the talk page.
902:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mantanmoreland
2297:
I noticed the following SSP reports have been tagged for a while with
2213:
There is a new tool, which provides 'check user' capability available
2682:
is defunct. Please use the new reporting system; it *does* work. See
930:
First off, I am writing this without my username on purpose. This is
260:
2214:
1784:
I'm an idiot and forgot to remover the User: prefix in the case of
3023:) has been on the project since 2009, but has very few edits, and
368:
2828:
If it is not sensible, than why we have it? Should i take it for
2313:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets#User:PoliticianTexas (4th)
1036:
Please also take not that this has gone on for months at a time.
2723:
451:
matches from the server logs? The whois records for the IPs in
208:
This is all too confusing for me! Would someone please look at
3104:
2876:
2194:
which seems to have gone without question on the Romanian WP.
2073:
Category:Suspected Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla
57:
15:
2582:
and very the very same as the combination of these two edits:
572:
3037:) is a long time editor who happens to disagree with you. --
2686:, and follow the directions. If you need assistance, ask at
2576:. This edit matched exactly these edits by the above socks:
2391:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Archive/December 2008
2317:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (4th)
768:
Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls
2393:. I'd still love to know why it's doing what it's doing. --
844:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Business Publication
821:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd)
909:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland
2970:
Brand New User Suddenly Nominating Articles for Deletion
2323:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets#User:Fraberj (5th)
1921:, RhoLyokoWarrior, but I should actually be filing it as
3156:
To anyone responding to this, please see my comments at
139:
I demand the removal of all such labels from wikipedia.
2658:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Dcourtneyjohnson
2586:
2583:
2580:
2577:
2574:
2519:
1183:
1034:
1031:
978:
972:
966:
960:
954:
948:
942:
81:
74:
2036:
Category:Suspected Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets of JJGD
1915:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/RhoLyokoWarrior
1602:
to help improve clarity (especially in long reports)?
1281:
Simply get an Administrator to either re-open the cas
2625:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Oldyellerlives
2531:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Barryispuzzled
2333:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets#User:Simpsonj3
1786:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/User:Skyeromer
1380:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th)
96:
have found nothing. Reply here, or on my talk page.
2327:
Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (5th)
1760:
who has successfully circumvented a semi-protect on
1756:
I had hoped to enter a mild case of sockpuppetry by
2536:All these puppets were created in the last 3 days:
1285:declare the case closed. Thus removing any doubts.
2718:was called a sockpuppet, and banned for 24 hours,
2588:Can some of you administrators intervene? Thanks.
2052:a parent category and keeps them from clogging up
865:I am a bit confused, but I found a sock puppet of
1861:What to do about abusive sock puppet accusations?
1440:multi step theories with half the steps missing?
740:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Setanta747
2337:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Simpsonj3
1064:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii
815:Reporting new information regarding closed case?
565:Innapropriate handling of suspected sockpuppets?
2758:, and he also appears to be the same editor as
2178:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected_sock_puppets/AzLehrer
447:Isn't RFCU also a way of confirming or denying
3067:) was blocked indefinitely due to vandalizing
2501:Don't hesitate to come and break things ;) --
2050:Category:Suspected Knowledge (XXG) sockpuppets
1923:Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Rikara
319:. This is stupid as that one doesn't exist.
8:
1024:2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team
2605:
2417:
2372:
770:. It is mostly caused by the many uses of
3139:{{short description|historical document}}
2714:. Here is the situation. Back in August,
2940:. Go there and follow the instructions.
2710:Hello! I was recommended to go here via
1619:things should be clear enough, I think.
1320:I made a number of attempts to warn at
2293:Bot unhappy with some SSPa tags. Why?
1033:Here is a listing of all of his edits
3101:Protected edit request on 10 May 2020
2653:Page is protected. Please also add:
2603:Luna Santin has already caught them!
1980:Anyone knows why it's not archiving?
1546:Is there a way to appeal the findings
348:I was advised to request an RFCU for
7:
2307:, but the bot isn't archiving them.
2048:template. This automatically makes
489:There is potentially more than just
2873:Edit request from , 28 October 2011
2722:. However, the above user e-mailed
2054:the uncategorized categories report
873:. Could an admin please block him.
608:Need to get more admins active here
350:82.201.156.201 and related IP socks
2208:
934:. I have a case of Wikistalk with
14:
2217:which could be worth evaluating.
1668:Ok, I guess I'll just stick with
455:, all show an Egyptian origin. -
3108:
2936:This board has been merged into
2927:
2880:
326:. Btw, this is just an example)
20:
3202:Probably not, but I have added
3086:, following the same pattern.--
2527:Shakespeare authorship question
2154:
2018:
1192:
1115:
1076:
271:Need clarification on the rules
2952:Thanks for guiding me Anomie.
2030:creating sockpuppet categories
1968:17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1951:16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1936:16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1897:21:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
1227:
1145:
1000:Waterloo Hawks all-time roster
869:, Operating under the name of
803:WP:AN/SSP-RFCU merger proposal
111:12:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
1:
2863:07:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
2846:15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2824:07:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2806:01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
2772:17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
2736:00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
2720:as evidenced by this SSP form
2700:17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
2673:17:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
2649:04:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
2463:14:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2426:14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2403:04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2381:00:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2364:00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2288:22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
2268:22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2245:22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2227:21:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2209:Offsite 'check user' function
2204:12:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
2161:17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
2133:19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
1588:13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1234:
1152:
856:15:10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
580:
339:21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
297:13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
281:11:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
266:06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
119:Meatpuppets? Give me a break!
3049:20:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
3004:20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
2962:05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
2948:19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
2921:13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
2684:WP:Sockpuppet investigations
2614:09:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2598:07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2180:and seems to have created a
2104:23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
2066:21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
2025:07:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1641:
1600:some indicators used by RfCU
1184:look at the opening evidence
676:
619:
245:11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
230:10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
199:14:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
3131:to reactivate your request.
3119:has been answered. Set the
2903:to reactivate your request.
2891:has been answered. Set the
2610:
2514:Can someone intervene here?
2508:15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2496:22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2422:
2377:
1991:11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
1876:04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
1856:02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1826:23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1812:11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1798:09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1775:21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
1747:18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
1723:17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
1220:
1138:
893:please archive this request
846:, which was never listed. —
3239:
3208:|historical project page}}
3096:13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
1664:20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
1653:20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
1629:12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
1613:00:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1560:12:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1530:14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1496:12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
1405:Is real evidence required?
1058:Are non-admins allowed to
888:11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
833:13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
810:22:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
603:13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
583:19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
525:07:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
64:
2832:? (not on my watchlist).
2251:Templates used in reports
1902:Backwards reporting style
1834:Sock-puppet report revert
1483:01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1464:00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
1450:23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1435:19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1420:19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1400:20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
1366:14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1347:11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1335:11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1308:15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1295:16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1241:15:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1197:15:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1159:15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1120:15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1101:15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1081:15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
792:15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
756:18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
733:17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
706:12:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
691:08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
668:08:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
653:08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
634:07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
560:23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
507:21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
485:14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
465:02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
443:09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
416:09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
399:07:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
384:05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
362:15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
156:Difficult to start report
3223:20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3196:08:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3182:03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
3151:02:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
2788:Please add the shortcut
1054:Non-admins closing cases
1049:20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
797:SSP/RFCU merger proposal
151:09:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
2176:Seems to be related to
1598:Can we start employing
921:11:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
453:this particular IP case
2741:Guidance re. IP editor
1468:If that is true, then
1322:User Talk:LuisGomez111
976:1972 NBA All-Star Game
970:1981 NBA All-Star Game
964:1997 NBA All-Star Game
958:2004 NBA All-Star Game
1374:Request for priority?
1020:Yahoo! Fantasy Sports
254:returns for archiving
176:Thanks for listening
91:List of sock-puppets?
2184:article about self (
2083:Blocked user Consist
1881:Tools: time analysis
2118:Sockpuppet category
2043:sockpuppet category
1844:user: Goingoveredge
1840:user: Goingoveredge
1803:I fixed it for ya!
1316:Warning the accused
1190:black and white. --
897:Hello, I filed thi
805:- opinions valued.
612:I tried posting on
204:Assistance required
1728:Some advice sought
1567:dispute resolution
1062:cases? I refer to
871:Total Ignorent boy
842:I stumbled across
661:The public face of
646:The public face of
290:The public face of
3221:
3206:short description
3180:
3135:
3134:
3084:Jasmine Villegas
3059:On 30 July 2013,
2992:User:Kevin_Gorman
2907:
2906:
2861:
2822:
2760:User:90.202.94.99
2751:User:90.208.53.16
2747:User:90.202.94.11
2570:user:Torricelli01
2566:user:JudgeJulianZ
2562:user:TipToesTulip
2538:user:JeffersonT02
1398:
1012:Robert E. Hawkins
988:Dodge Meadowbrook
940:Homer E. Woodling
932:User:SportsMaster
886:
857:
324:User:Bla... (2nd)
309:User:Bla... (2nd)
63:
62:
44:
43:
3230:
3211:
3209:
3164:
3163:
3140:
3126:
3122:
3112:
3111:
3105:
3046:
3041:
2982:
2981:
2977:
2935:
2931:
2930:
2898:
2894:
2884:
2883:
2877:
2851:
2836:
2812:
2796:
2792:to the article.
2787:
2662:
2656:
2634:
2611:
2607:
2554:user:Kessinger03
2505:
2493:
2451:
2445:
2423:
2419:
2378:
2374:
2306:
2300:
2156:
2122:
2116:
2047:
2041:
2038:) would use the
2020:
2009:User:GNAA popeye
1911:the user at hand
1807:
1758:User talk:By749b
1687:
1681:
1677:
1671:
1643:
1397:
1395:
1383:
1303:I've done that.
1238:
1231:
1224:
1194:
1156:
1149:
1142:
1117:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1078:
1008:Whammer (mascot)
1004:Moondog (mascot)
946:Robert F. Busbey
877:
847:
838:Orphaned request
777:
752:
746:
678:
621:
581:
578:
558:
555:
549:
492:
450:
441:
434:
263:
195:
192:
191:
188:
187:
84:
77:
58:
35:
34:
24:
16:
3238:
3237:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3203:
3161:
3138:
3124:
3120:
3109:
3103:
3057:
3044:
3039:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2973:
2972:
2928:
2926:
2896:
2892:
2881:
2875:
2843:
2834:
2803:
2794:
2781:
2779:
2743:
2708:
2660:
2654:
2632:
2622:
2542:user:BuyBuyBaby
2523:Baconian theory
2516:
2503:
2491:
2482:
2449:
2443:
2304:
2298:
2295:
2275:
2273:Ways to assist?
2253:
2211:
2174:
2157:
2140:
2120:
2114:
2111:
2085:
2045:
2039:
2032:
2021:
1998:
1978:
1917:, based on the
1904:
1883:
1863:
1836:
1805:
1782:
1754:
1730:
1710:
1685:
1679:
1675:
1669:
1662:
1596:
1548:
1407:
1393:
1385:
1376:
1318:
1095:
1090:
1088:
1056:
928:
895:
863:
840:
817:
799:
771:
764:
750:
744:
720:
718:Just a question
704:
666:
651:
610:
590:
567:
553:
542:
539:
490:
448:
430:
428:
346:
305:
295:
273:
261:
256:
206:
193:
189:
185:
183:
181:
158:
121:
93:
88:
87:
80:
73:
69:
59:
53:
29:
12:
11:
5:
3236:
3234:
3226:
3225:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3133:
3132:
3113:
3102:
3099:
3061:Ethan haden731
3056:
3053:
3052:
3051:
2986:User:Wfunction
2971:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2905:
2904:
2885:
2874:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2841:
2801:
2778:
2775:
2742:
2739:
2707:
2706:Banner removal
2704:
2703:
2702:
2621:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2558:user:RegHiside
2550:user:Sycorax14
2546:user:ProsperoY
2515:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2481:
2476:
2474:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2384:
2383:
2340:
2339:
2329:
2319:
2294:
2291:
2274:
2271:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2210:
2207:
2173:
2164:
2153:
2139:
2136:
2110:
2107:
2084:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2031:
2028:
2017:
1997:
1994:
1977:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1954:
1953:
1903:
1900:
1882:
1879:
1862:
1859:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1818:Mostlyharmless
1790:Mostlyharmless
1781:
1778:
1753:
1750:
1729:
1726:
1715:206.188.48.225
1709:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1658:
1632:
1631:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1575:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1493:Admiral Norton
1456:Wildthing61476
1427:Wildthing61476
1406:
1403:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1350:
1349:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1298:
1297:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1104:
1103:
1068:Shalom Yechiel
1055:
1052:
996:Waterloo Hawks
927:
924:
905:
904:
894:
891:
862:
859:
839:
836:
816:
813:
798:
795:
763:
760:
759:
758:
719:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
700:
659:
644:
641:
609:
606:
589:
586:
566:
563:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
419:
418:
403:
402:
401:
367:You could use
345:
342:
304:
301:
300:
299:
288:
272:
269:
255:
249:
248:
247:
214:User:Ankur0412
205:
202:
161:this myself);
157:
154:
120:
117:
115:
92:
89:
86:
85:
78:
70:
65:
61:
60:
55:
51:
49:
46:
45:
42:
41:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3235:
3224:
3219:
3215:
3207:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3188:Jo-Jo Eumerus
3185:
3184:
3183:
3179:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3159:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3130:
3127:parameter to
3118:
3114:
3107:
3106:
3100:
3098:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3085:
3080:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3054:
3050:
3047:
3042:
3036:
3033:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3019:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3001:
2997:
2993:
2988:
2987:
2978:
2969:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2946:
2943:
2939:
2934:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2918:
2914:
2910:
2902:
2899:parameter to
2890:
2886:
2879:
2878:
2872:
2864:
2859:
2855:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2844:
2839:
2837:
2831:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2820:
2816:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2804:
2799:
2797:
2791:
2785:
2776:
2774:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2752:
2748:
2740:
2738:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2728:CarpetCrawler
2725:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2659:
2651:
2650:
2647:
2645:
2641:
2636:
2635:
2627:
2626:
2619:
2615:
2612:
2608:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2584:
2581:
2578:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2564:(Jan 10) and
2563:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2513:
2509:
2506:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2494:
2488:
2480:
2477:
2475:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2456:
2448:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2427:
2424:
2420:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2382:
2379:
2375:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2352:
2348:
2346:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2303:
2292:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2272:
2270:
2269:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2250:
2246:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2163:
2162:
2159:
2158:
2150:
2145:
2138:Where they at
2137:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2119:
2108:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2044:
2037:
2029:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2022:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1995:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1985:
1984:
1976:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1934:
1931:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1901:
1899:
1898:
1895:
1892:
1889:
1880:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1860:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1833:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1779:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1751:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1727:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1707:
1697:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1684:
1674:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1601:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1545:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1404:
1402:
1401:
1396:
1390:
1389:
1381:
1373:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1358:Peter jackson
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:Peter jackson
1323:
1315:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1223:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1198:
1195:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1150:
1148:
1143:
1141:
1135:
1132:The reviewer
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1121:
1118:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1091:Steve Crossin
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1053:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:65.43.184.190
1037:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:Yahoo! Sports
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
979:
977:
973:
971:
967:
965:
961:
959:
955:
953:
949:
947:
943:
941:
937:
936:GoHuskies9904
933:
925:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
903:
900:
899:
898:
892:
890:
889:
884:
881:
876:
872:
868:
860:
858:
855:
851:
845:
837:
835:
834:
830:
826:
822:
814:
812:
811:
808:
804:
796:
794:
793:
789:
785:
781:
775:
769:
762:ifexist limit
761:
757:
753:
747:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
725:Wildhartlivie
717:
707:
703:
698:
695:I'll post on
694:
693:
692:
689:
686:
685:
684:
680:
679:
671:
670:
669:
665:
662:
656:
655:
654:
650:
647:
642:
638:
637:
636:
635:
632:
629:
628:
627:
623:
622:
615:
607:
605:
604:
600:
596:
588:Order of list
587:
585:
584:
579:
577:
576:
575:Ketchup Krew
564:
562:
561:
556:
550:
548:
546:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
446:
445:
444:
439:
435:
433:
425:
421:
420:
417:
413:
409:
404:
400:
396:
392:
387:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
344:RFCU for IPs?
343:
341:
340:
336:
332:
327:
325:
320:
318:
314:
310:
302:
298:
294:
291:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
270:
268:
267:
264:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:User:Pvsamrat
203:
201:
200:
197:
196:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
155:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
134:
130:
128:
125:
118:
116:
113:
112:
108:
104:
100:
97:
90:
83:
79:
76:
72:
71:
68:
48:
47:
40:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
3165:
3143:—¿philoserf?
3136:
3128:
3117:edit request
3081:
3058:
3031:
3025:Kevin_Gorman
3017:
2989:
2984:
2932:
2911:
2908:
2900:
2889:edit request
2780:
2777:Edit request
2756:the same AfD
2744:
2716:User:MarkRae
2712:User:Emperor
2709:
2652:
2637:
2630:
2628:
2623:
2573:summary here
2535:
2517:
2483:
2473:
2459:
2454:
2353:
2349:
2344:
2341:
2296:
2280:Lazulilasher
2276:
2254:
2212:
2189:
2175:
2152:
2141:
2112:
2088:User:Consist
2086:
2077:Carolmooredc
2033:
2016:
2005:User:GNAAdar
2001:User:GNAADar
1999:
1996:User:GNAADar
1987:
1982:
1979:
1919:current user
1918:
1910:
1908:
1905:
1884:
1864:
1837:
1783:
1755:
1734:Esther Hicks
1731:
1711:
1695:
1690:
1648:
1646:
1639:
1609:
1604:
1597:
1552:AlbinoFerret
1549:
1522:AlbinoFerret
1488:
1475:AlbinoFerret
1442:AlbinoFerret
1412:AlbinoFerret
1408:
1387:
1377:
1342:
1319:
1282:
1235:
1228:
1221:
1187:
1180:
1179:that he did
1176:
1153:
1146:
1139:
1133:
1071:
1059:
1057:
1038:
1028:Maxwell Show
929:
906:
896:
867:Komodo Lover
864:
841:
818:
800:
765:
721:
683:
681:
674:
626:
624:
617:
611:
591:
574:
573:
568:
544:
543:
537:
517:81.104.39.63
477:81.104.39.63
431:
423:
408:81.104.39.63
347:
331:Simply south
328:
321:
306:
274:
257:
207:
180:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
141:
138:
135:
131:
129:
126:
122:
114:
101:
98:
94:
26:
3137:P;ease add
2996:Carrot Lord
2784:editrequest
2663:. Thanks.
2455:OhanaUnited
2186:Andy Lehrer
1983:OhanaUnited
1891:Will Beback
1691:OhanaUnited
1621:--Akhilleus
1605:OhanaUnited
992:Suzuki FZ50
854:Pathoschild
432:Luna Santin
424:other users
377:geolocation
317:User:Bla...
313:User:Bla...
311:instead of
278:Stor stark7
75:WT:SUSPSOCK
3121:|answered=
3073:Laufenty93
3055:Sockpuppet
2893:|answered=
2692:EdJohnston
2620:Please add
2568:(Jan 10).
2544:(Jan 10),
2219:PhilKnight
2171:High poems
2092:Talk:Clade
1739:Tmtoulouse
1594:Indicators
1266:arguments.
1186:. That is
984:Vixen (RV)
952:Weird U.S.
861:Sockpuppet
491:user-agent
449:user-agent
373:traceroute
143:Lilith2396
3210:— Martin
3011:Wfunction
2629:Thanks --
2560:(Jan 9),
2556:(Jan 8),
2552:(Jan 8),
2548:(Jan 8),
2540:(Jan 8),
2331:section:
2321:section:
2311:section:
2125:Stepheng3
2109:a request
2058:Stepheng3
1848:Roadahead
1708:Mea Culpa
1683:Completed
1470:this case
1343:TheChrisD
1305:Jehochman
1175:The user
1096:(contact)
926:Wikistalk
322:(That is
67:Shortcuts
39:Archive 1
3088:Jockzain
3035:contribs
3021:contribs
2954:Satya563
2933:Not done
2913:Satya563
2842:Contribs
2835:Armbrust
2802:Contribs
2795:Armbrust
2633:Kraftlos
2525:and the
2504:lucasbfr
2492:Tiptoety
2335:• page:
2325:• page:
2315:• page:
2191:Bengalia
2167:Anlirian
1868:Tom94022
1816:Thanks!
1767:Student7
1762:Iraq War
1732:Over on
1565:See the
1193:Schcambo
1177:admitted
1116:Schcambo
1077:Schcambo
1066:, where
883:contribs
788:contribs
513:the list
495:WP:BEANS
27:Archives
2644:Contrib
2606:Scarian
2590:Smatprt
2479:WP:SSP2
2418:Scarian
2395:barneca
2373:Scarian
2370:there.
2356:barneca
2196:Shyamal
2096:Philcha
1975:EBot II
1927:Yngvarr
1673:IPblock
1572:WP:AN/I
1473:months.
1287:GoodDay
1072:looking
499:Neparis
472:WP:RFCU
457:Neparis
391:Mayalld
354:Neparis
252:EBot II
237:Mjroots
222:Mjroots
3069:WP:BLP
2974:": -->
2942:Anomie
2938:WP:SPI
2830:WP:RFD
2790:WP:RSP
2745:Hiya.
2688:WT:SPI
2680:WP:SSP
2678:Guys,
2182:WP:COI
2169:&
2149:Suntag
2013:Suntag
1943:Mfield
1780:Whoops
1688:then.
1642:Enigma
1487:There
913:Huldra
825:Orlady
751:review
745:Rudget
688:Review
677:Enigma
631:Review
620:Enigma
218:wp:aiv
103:Jlamro
82:WT:SSP
3162:Amory
3160:. ~
3125:|ans=
3115:This
3040:Versa
2897:|ans=
2887:This
2764:EEMIV
2144:stats
2011:. --
1394:Talk
1388:Jza84
1060:close
875:T.Neo
850:admin
780:TheDJ
774:user5
697:WP:AN
614:WP:AN
547:levse
381:MER-C
369:whois
194:Spark
3218:talk
3214:MSGJ
3192:talk
3147:talk
3092:talk
3077:talk
3065:talk
3045:geek
3029:talk
3015:talk
3000:talk
2976:edit
2958:talk
2917:talk
2858:talk
2854:MSGJ
2819:talk
2815:MSGJ
2768:talk
2749:and
2732:talk
2696:talk
2669:talk
2640:Talk
2594:talk
2487:here
2447:sspa
2399:talk
2360:talk
2345:then
2302:SSPa
2284:talk
2223:talk
2215:here
2200:talk
2129:talk
2100:talk
2062:talk
2056:. -
2003:and
1964:talk
1947:talk
1888:·:·
1872:talk
1852:talk
1846:. --
1822:talk
1794:talk
1771:talk
1752:Lost
1743:talk
1719:talk
1678:and
1625:talk
1584:talk
1556:talk
1526:talk
1479:talk
1460:talk
1446:talk
1431:talk
1416:talk
1362:talk
1331:talk
1291:talk
1222:Fone
1188:very
1140:Fone
1113:. --
1111:AN/I
1045:talk
917:talk
880:talk
829:talk
801:See
784:talk
729:talk
599:talk
554:Talk
521:talk
515:) --
503:talk
481:talk
461:talk
438:talk
412:talk
395:talk
358:talk
335:talk
241:talk
226:talk
212:and
147:talk
107:talk
3123:or
2895:or
2724:AGK
2665:THF
2585:and
2257:Lar
2234:Lar
1960:Kww
1933:(c)
1930:(t)
1894:·:·
1806:SQL
1580:Abd
1181:not
1134:did
807:FT2
595:hAl
303:2nd
3216:·
3204:{{
3194:)
3174:•
3170:•
3149:)
3141:.
3129:no
3094:)
3002:)
2960:)
2919:)
2901:no
2856:·
2817:·
2786:}}
2782:{{
2770:)
2734:)
2698:)
2690:.
2671:)
2661:}}
2655:{{
2642:|
2596:)
2452:.
2450:}}
2444:{{
2401:)
2362:)
2305:}}
2299:{{
2286:)
2259::
2236::
2225:)
2202:)
2131:)
2121:}}
2115:{{
2102:)
2064:)
2046:}}
2040:{{
1966:)
1949:)
1874:)
1854:)
1824:)
1796:)
1773:)
1745:)
1721:)
1686:}}
1680:{{
1676:}}
1670:{{
1660:Gb
1627:)
1586:)
1558:)
1528:)
1489:is
1481:)
1462:)
1448:)
1433:)
1418:)
1391:|
1384:--
1364:)
1333:)
1293:)
1283:or
1236:Me
1154:Me
1047:)
1039:--
1026:,
1022:,
1018:,
1014:,
1010:,
1006:,
1002:,
998:,
994:,
990:,
986:,
980:,
974:,
968:,
962:,
956:,
950:,
944:,
919:)
852:}
831:)
790:)
786:•
776:}}
772:{{
754:)
742:.
731:)
702:GB
664:GB
649:GB
601:)
557:•
551:•
540:—
523:)
505:)
483:)
475:--
463:)
414:)
397:)
375:,
371:,
360:)
337:)
293:GB
243:)
228:)
190:ng
186:ni
184:in
182:Sp
149:)
109:)
3220:)
3212:(
3190:(
3178:)
3176:c
3172:t
3168:u
3166:(
3145:(
3090:(
3075:(
3063:(
3032:·
3027:(
3018:·
3013:(
2998:(
2980:]
2956:(
2945:⚔
2915:(
2860:)
2852:(
2821:)
2813:(
2766:(
2730:(
2694:(
2667:(
2646:)
2638:(
2592:(
2579:,
2397:(
2358:(
2282:(
2265:c
2263:/
2261:t
2242:c
2240:/
2238:t
2221:(
2198:(
2155:☼
2127:(
2098:(
2060:(
2019:☼
1962:(
1945:(
1870:(
1850:(
1820:(
1792:(
1769:(
1741:(
1717:(
1623:(
1582:(
1554:(
1524:(
1477:(
1458:(
1444:(
1429:(
1414:(
1360:(
1329:(
1289:(
1229:4
1147:4
1043:(
915:(
885:)
878:(
848:{
827:(
782:(
748:(
727:(
597:(
545:R
519:(
501:(
479:(
459:(
440:)
436:(
410:(
393:(
356:(
333:(
262:E
239:(
224:(
145:(
105:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
