![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page. |
Why won't you pre-emptively protect the pages I asked for? The vandalism will occur (I'd bet good money on it), so there is no reason for other editors to waste their time fixing vandalism that could have been prevented. Spidey 104 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For serendipitously cutting off tendentious argument by a block-evading user at RFP, I hereby award you the Admin's Barnstar, and along with it offer my sincere vote of thanks. Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
Just a note, when you protect a template like this, please remember to wrap the protection template in <noinclude> tags. This particular case caused Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates to go from ~10 entries to 9100+. It's been removed now, and the category is slowly emptying out, so no harm done. Just something for future reference. :-) Keep up the good work! Avic ennasis @ 17:45, 26 Iyar 5771 / 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey DQ. I just want to let you know that when I rollback using Twinkle I always warn every user on the spot, however yesterday Twinkle was having problems on and off all day (there's even a post at the ANI about it) and so I used STiki instead, which will not warn a user if the edit in the backlog is older than a few days and from an IP. Presumably this is to prevent false warnings of people with dynamic IPs but there is no way to change it in the STiki options afaik. I believe that with huggle you have more control over this and I would ask that you reconsider my request for rollback privileges. It can't hurt that only.02% of my edits have been reverted :). Thanks! Noformation Talk 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Been a month now, we're still waiting. Could you please get back to this review? Thank you. N419 BH 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
For your continued hard work at SPI (the tools have definitely been bestowed on the right person) and your hard work in deletions and protection of pages I give you this award as recognition and thanks:
![]() |
DeltaQuad has been inducted into the
Order of the Mop, |
![]() |
Thanks DQ :) — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 6:56pm • 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi DQ, any chance of a bot run this week? I hope to be online part of this weekend. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw you semi-protected those three subpages of mine. Did you see them at WP:RfPP and forgot to leave a response or did you read my mind? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
RFPP|s}}
them. =)
—
GFOLEY
FOUR—
01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlrios but it's not showing up in the active case list. Is it just a lag or did I do something wrong? Regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
21:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just PP'd Miss World 2011, probably after seeing my note at WP:RPP. There is nothing fishy going on: these women's entries are effectively one-line BLPs, as at Miss Universe 2011. IP editors and SPAs in particular are coming in with nationalist tendencies, adding uncited heights etc, or increasing their own favourite's height and sometimes decreasing the height of an opposition candidate. It is trivial stuff in my world but not trivial to the contestants. I explained the situation to User:Orlady yesterday for the other article and she semi-PP'd that one, which has made a difference already. She seemed to accept the BLP situation and that my reverts (and sometimes also those by other people) were protected by the 3RR exception for BLPs.
I am actually trying to find cites for all this stuff but, tbh, I'm more into industrial history and Indian castes than beauty pageants & so it is an on/off sort of job.
Hope this explains. There is nothing particularly fishy about it. - Sitush ( talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!
![]() There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.
The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), Tea with toast ( Talk), Chaosdruid ( talk), and Torchiest ( talk). |
Sent on behalf of the
Guild of Copy Editors using
AWB on 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please follow {{ PROD}} removal instructions at Eugene Burger. I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk ( talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that you have blocked Arnithorri for vandalism. Certainly that is the way the editing looked at first, but looking deeper I don't think it was. I am inclined to unblock, but thought it better to consult you. You can see my reason at User talk:Arnithorri. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I do thank you for your assistance in the last article after an IP address attempted to re-add an unreferenced entry or source of former employees as per BLP material set by another user. I will still continue to monitor the article, however. CHAK 001 ( talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello DeltaQuad,
I would like to bring these matters [1] [2] to your attention on the grounds that you told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne that "On hold pending further investigation, hoping to be back in 1 or 2 days. Poke me on my TP if i'm not back."-- Nmate ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear DeltaQuad,
Sorry to "hijack" this topic a bit but since the meatpuppetry of Bizovne's being discussed here I thought I'd ask you whether is there any possibility for sanctioning meatpuppetry in connection with behavioral evidence (even though you've closed the SPI case) or not? -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The recapitulation of my proofs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Second, here, Bizovne had reverted me [16] and the next user who edited the article was a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Dadamereu [17] And at the article Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, I had deleted the edits of one another confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi , User:Attila99, and then Bizovne restored those edits made by the sockpuppet of Iaaasi two times without having edited the article beforehand: [18]-> [19]-> [20]]. Too much coincidence.
|
Ok DQ, I'm sorry to take another part in hijacking your talk page, but I feel that something definitely needs to be done in case of Bizovne because it's obvious that he's lying and trying to deceive everyone so that he can get away with the things he did on WP. First of all, I'm aware of your TLDR clause so I'll try to be as brief as possible (which might still result in a somewhat long text, but it's really for the sake of clarity only). Also, please note that the story might include some of my speculations too just to make up for "continuity". These might or might not be true.
First of all, my interaction with Wookie began not on EN WP, but on SK WP (he edits there under the name of Wookie). First of all he's been a long-time editor on SK WP (which's well-known for its heavy nationalism, autocracy and hostility toward disagreeing opinions for anyone who understands just a little bit of Slovak) and he came to EN WP only recently (March 18, a few weeks before Iaaasi's been blocked for good on the 29th of the same month). My interaction with Bizovne in fact began on SK WP in connection with a discussion on another user's talk page (sorry, it's all Slovak, but I'm including it in hope of being read by someone who understands it). Then a bit later (April 18) I wrote a (somewhat unflattering) note on Wladthemlat's talk page questioning his motives behind some of his edits. That's when he started his more regular edits on EN WP as well, first with a "good hand, bad hand" strategy (he used his "real" account to make "good" i.e. less questionable and offensive edits while his sock IPs to make make the "bad" ones). However I've revealed both his IP socks (with considerable help from himself) and since he made some offensive remarks to me and other Hungarians on my talk page (e.g. called me a fascist, all in Slovak of course) he's been blocked for a month.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago. If you take a look at his edits from before his first block, it was mostly about reverting my, Hobartimus' and Nmate's edits. However after his block has expired he's started to systematically attack/revert/report a user he's never met before, never heard before and obviously never interacted with (because as we know from his previous edits, he's interacted mostly with myself, Hobartimus and Nmate). However a mere month has passed and all of a sudden he's reverting edits of Stubes99's sock accounts. Since I never mentioned Stubes99 at all (and presumably neither did Hobartimus nor Nmate), the only place he could've learned about him and his deeds was via Iaaasi.
You can see the most recent development and the most palpable evidences above, which (together with my little story above) point to the obvious fact that Bizovne has been recruited by Iaaasi for meatpuppetry (i.e. making edits on his own behalf on WP). Since Iaaasi's managed to gain quite a reputation of being an email canvasser. Since he's probably used one of his countless socks to contact Bizovne, it's fairly to easy to prove his affiliation: an admin with appropriate privileges (an arbitrator AFAIK) might check for the email communication between Bizovne and other users and then cross-reference that with Iaaasi's list of sockpuppets. And I'm sure that an email would turn up, which'd be the undeniable proof of Bizovne's meatpuppetry. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version. :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should still be removed preemptively.
I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — Coren (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've got to run to work, so you stepped in at a right time. I've been trying to get a good discourse going between these guys, and haven't blocked anyone yet - I'd appreciate it if you didn't, either, unless absolutely necessary. Of course, you're your own person, so you're welcome to take whatever action you deem fit. In any case, I'll be back in twelve hours or so. Cheers, m.o.p 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How could I have been blocked for edit warring when I was trying to remove what I thought was obvious vandalism. I was removing the bracket that he added all the time and other edits that he was overriding. How is that an edit war? -- 86.45.75.42 ( talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey DeltaQuad!!! :) you are a good wiki brotha and you do help put others. I have a request, how do I change my wiki user name? how do I apply for it. I want to change my current wiki user name/account name. Please explain it for me and make it as simple as you can. Thanx.
Msrafiq ( talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to ask (regarding that wiki user/account name change topic), if I change my wiki account name, will this also change the number of edits I have done to wiki, or the duration of time I have been contributing ti wikipedia, because I am an old user and I treasure my contributions to wikipedia, I dont want to lose my user edit count and my user member duration period!!.
One more thing, I have permission to use AWB, will the new name remove my authorization to use AWB?
Thanx again!!
Msrafiq ( talk) 10:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, ready when you are for another run. Cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 21:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi DQ :)
up there ^ in your discussion page, you'd notice I asked (as Msrafiq) to be granted rights to use AWB when my account name had been changed, and you said you would, well its changed now. I had rights to use it as Msrafiq and I would like to be granted that for this account. Thank you once again DQ.
:)
Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you DQ. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would you please consider removing the block on this article? No diffs were provided of any edit warring or any explanation as to why a block was needed. I am unaware of anyone having been blocked as an editor. This block seems only to freeze in place a preferred version of certain users at a time when the article is likely to draw reader attention.
Since it will undoubtedly be brought up, I did myself various times try to restore a timeline section of the article which hand been composed by many editors (I neither began the section nor expanded it myself) and which was then deleted according to an edit summary-asserted consensus which does not exist on the discussion page. In any case, I have no intention of restoring the timeline section again myself if no other editor is willing to do so.
I also find it odd that the account requesting the freeze has made no contributions, only reversions, and a strangely selective few at that, on the page.
Please remove the block. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks DQ. It's on my watchlist as it is so I'll be keeping an eye after the week is up, any nonsense and I'll post another note. All the best. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Delta. Over the past few years, Marshall Sylver, or representatives of his, have been laboring to remove any record of Sylver's documented and reliably sourced criminal history from the page. In its place, they've been placing advertisements for Sylver, his products, and his "hypnotize-your-way-to-success" seminars. (A check of the article Talk Page will demonstrate this.) The latest SPA is 180North, who is now trying the revert-and-get-the-page-locked approach to editing.
Would you mind unlocking the page? I and another editor agreed on my last round of edits. But Sylver's latest "rep" appears to be trying to work the refs. Feel free to review my responses to his comments. Thanks. -- LongLiveReagan ( talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a little more history of what's been going on for the past few years: [30] [31] [32] [33] The accounts even go so far as to use Sylver's press releases as "reliable sources." -- LongLiveReagan ( talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
See [34] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
... for thinking outside the box, and protecting the article as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410. Smart call. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the help on the Abuse response email! That was nice of you to do so. Sorry I didn't respond to the email that I sent because I was at my friend's house and I didn't have time to do so.-- Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Delta. IMO IPs are at the root of the disruption here. It seems every week a different IP shows up, edits disruptively, and then disappears. I think there's every indication that there are socks/meats at work, and suspicions have been voiced by more than 1 editor that this is the case. As a matter of fact I filed an SPI: but CU cannot connect an IP with a confirmed account. I strongly urge you to only restrict IPs from editing and allow confirmed users to edit. This will determine once and for all if the IPs are socks/meats. – Lionel ( talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
IPs are at the root of the disruption? I think the root of the disruption is that a certain user will not allow attempts to remove the peacock wording that the article is currently flagged for (by an experienced editor) and that another experienced editor has also attempted to correct. If that certain user would discuss rather than simply blindly reverting anything that comes from an IP, then, there would be much more progress made on the article. 69.89.205.152 ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I've been using the IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.100.20.87
However, you will note that I did make an account before you blocked said IP from making a new account. I made this account as others also use the IP and as such, I thouht it would easiest to make my own account. Secondly, I made the account so I could sign my post in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Dispute_on_what_a_source_claims.
However, as the account creation was before you blocked me, I'm confused as to what to do. Will I still be able to use this account? If so, is it best to wait until the ban on the IP is lifted?
Gorlack36 ( talk) 18:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Understood, thank you for clearing that up. :)
Gorlack36 ( talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing with regard to User:180north, who is a co-worker of mine and whom you blocked for allegedly using multiple accounts. However, the alleged sockpuppet investigation you conducted (found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive) lasted only six minutes before you blocked 180north. No checkuser was done and nobody else commented in the investigation. This does not seem like much of an investigation to me. The alleged similarity between 180north's edits and the edits by the other users who were subjects of the same sockpuppet investigation is that all of these editors were involved with editing Marshall Sylver. However, 180north disclosed in the first sentence of their very first edit to Wikipedia, "I represent Marshall Sylver." [37]
I don't find it implausible that other people could have been editing on Sylver's behalf back in 2007, in which case 180north should not be charged with and blocked for the alleged sockpuppetry which other people may have engaged in four years ago. From your comment "Quackers" in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive, I assume you are applying the duck test, but this is far from the "obvious case" contemplated by WP:DUCK, due to the four-year gap and the difference in writing style between 180north and the other editors.
Incidentally, 180north was never warned or even questioned about the alleged sockpuppetry before you blocked them, which I believe reflects a lack of assuming good faith.
Finally, I don't understand the clause "The user did explain that the other account noted by Hersfold" in [38] -- there's at least one word missing, or one word too many, there.
I will note that I am a registered Wikipedia editor, but I am submitting these comments as an IP user to avoid having my Wikipedia identity become known at my job. -- 99.140.181.172 ( talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. The witticism about "X and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee" has been around for ages, so it's not original to me (but since 50 cents no longer is enough for a cup of coffee, I adjusted for inflation). Daniel Case ( talk) 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats the page I help with, the only page, but I need help I have no idea what to do, I've won the battle and exposed the villains, but I need help to deal with them and clear the talkpage so that work can continue. There is so much work to get done, and two people have caused such incredible grief and problems I've been to some arbitrator thing and that went okish, sortof, for a while, and now this, just to get one single paragraph of the article improved has cost me so much. So much, and work hasn't even yet begun. You'll see as you look all the detail, but two things I can stand up for more than anything, I'm truthful and I can deliver on all claims and I want the work, which is just starting to go ahead as smoothly as possible. there is an FAR which I began, it's to improve the article where I couldn't do it alone, and it is perfectly legitimate and necessary. There are new sections, new material, updated facts to go in there, and the article is in a mess. The talkpage needs cleaning up, I don't know the commands for it, the bloke told me {{archive upper}} but that doesn't move things to archive, he was just , well, you'll work it out if you have time. Or please, help refer this to whoever you can to help me. I can't go through another 20 hour stretch of learning procedures. I need help I need adopting. Penyulap talk 03:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page. |
Why won't you pre-emptively protect the pages I asked for? The vandalism will occur (I'd bet good money on it), so there is no reason for other editors to waste their time fixing vandalism that could have been prevented. Spidey 104 20:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For serendipitously cutting off tendentious argument by a block-evading user at RFP, I hereby award you the Admin's Barnstar, and along with it offer my sincere vote of thanks. Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 20:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC) |
Just a note, when you protect a template like this, please remember to wrap the protection template in <noinclude> tags. This particular case caused Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates to go from ~10 entries to 9100+. It's been removed now, and the category is slowly emptying out, so no harm done. Just something for future reference. :-) Keep up the good work! Avic ennasis @ 17:45, 26 Iyar 5771 / 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey DQ. I just want to let you know that when I rollback using Twinkle I always warn every user on the spot, however yesterday Twinkle was having problems on and off all day (there's even a post at the ANI about it) and so I used STiki instead, which will not warn a user if the edit in the backlog is older than a few days and from an IP. Presumably this is to prevent false warnings of people with dynamic IPs but there is no way to change it in the STiki options afaik. I believe that with huggle you have more control over this and I would ask that you reconsider my request for rollback privileges. It can't hurt that only.02% of my edits have been reverted :). Thanks! Noformation Talk 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Been a month now, we're still waiting. Could you please get back to this review? Thank you. N419 BH 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
For your continued hard work at SPI (the tools have definitely been bestowed on the right person) and your hard work in deletions and protection of pages I give you this award as recognition and thanks:
![]() |
DeltaQuad has been inducted into the
Order of the Mop, |
![]() |
Thanks DQ :) — James ( Talk • Contribs) • 6:56pm • 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi DQ, any chance of a bot run this week? I hope to be online part of this weekend. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw you semi-protected those three subpages of mine. Did you see them at WP:RfPP and forgot to leave a response or did you read my mind? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/ Sign mine 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
RFPP|s}}
them. =)
—
GFOLEY
FOUR—
01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just submitted
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlrios but it's not showing up in the active case list. Is it just a lag or did I do something wrong? Regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
21:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You have just PP'd Miss World 2011, probably after seeing my note at WP:RPP. There is nothing fishy going on: these women's entries are effectively one-line BLPs, as at Miss Universe 2011. IP editors and SPAs in particular are coming in with nationalist tendencies, adding uncited heights etc, or increasing their own favourite's height and sometimes decreasing the height of an opposition candidate. It is trivial stuff in my world but not trivial to the contestants. I explained the situation to User:Orlady yesterday for the other article and she semi-PP'd that one, which has made a difference already. She seemed to accept the BLP situation and that my reverts (and sometimes also those by other people) were protected by the 3RR exception for BLPs.
I am actually trying to find cites for all this stuff but, tbh, I'm more into industrial history and Indian castes than beauty pageants & so it is an on/off sort of job.
Hope this explains. There is nothing particularly fishy about it. - Sitush ( talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the
Guild of Copy Editors
May 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating!
![]() There were 63 signups for the drive; of these, 45 participated. Although we did not award a bonus for articles from the Requests page this drive, we are not experiencing lengthy delays in getting the articles processed. Many thanks to editors who have been helping out at the Requests page and by copy editing articles from the backlog.
During the month of May we reduced the backlog by approximately 10%, and made remarkable progress on eliminating articles tagged from 2009. There are now only 15 articles left, down from the 415 that were present when the drive started. Since our backlog drives began in May 2010 with 8,323 articles, we have cleared more than 54% of the backlog. A complete list of results and barnstars awarded can be found here. Barnstars will be distributed over the next week. If you enjoyed participating in our event, you may also like to join the Wikification drives, which are held on alternate months to our drives. Their June drive has started.
The six-month term for our first tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the second tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. Please feel free to contact any coordinator if you have any questions or need assistance. Your project coordinators are S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( Talk), Tea with toast ( Talk), Chaosdruid ( talk), and Torchiest ( talk). |
Sent on behalf of the
Guild of Copy Editors using
AWB on 08:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please follow {{ PROD}} removal instructions at Eugene Burger. I have reverted your edit and commented on the talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain to me why you used the word vandalism when blocking this user? As far as I can see none of their edits are vandalism but rather are attempts to improve the encyclopaedia. Per WP:VANDALISM that is not vandalism. A block may well have been warranted but I would have thought it would have been for edit warring rather than vandalism. Sorry about this being somewhat after the event but I've only just noticed it and I'm concerned we're being too harsh on this user and don't think describing their edits as vandalism is going to help. Dpmuk ( talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that you have blocked Arnithorri for vandalism. Certainly that is the way the editing looked at first, but looking deeper I don't think it was. I am inclined to unblock, but thought it better to consult you. You can see my reason at User talk:Arnithorri. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I do thank you for your assistance in the last article after an IP address attempted to re-add an unreferenced entry or source of former employees as per BLP material set by another user. I will still continue to monitor the article, however. CHAK 001 ( talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello DeltaQuad,
I would like to bring these matters [1] [2] to your attention on the grounds that you told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne that "On hold pending further investigation, hoping to be back in 1 or 2 days. Poke me on my TP if i'm not back."-- Nmate ( talk) 09:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear DeltaQuad,
Sorry to "hijack" this topic a bit but since the meatpuppetry of Bizovne's being discussed here I thought I'd ask you whether is there any possibility for sanctioning meatpuppetry in connection with behavioral evidence (even though you've closed the SPI case) or not? -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The recapitulation of my proofs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Second, here, Bizovne had reverted me [16] and the next user who edited the article was a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, User:Dadamereu [17] And at the article Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, I had deleted the edits of one another confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi , User:Attila99, and then Bizovne restored those edits made by the sockpuppet of Iaaasi two times without having edited the article beforehand: [18]-> [19]-> [20]]. Too much coincidence.
|
Ok DQ, I'm sorry to take another part in hijacking your talk page, but I feel that something definitely needs to be done in case of Bizovne because it's obvious that he's lying and trying to deceive everyone so that he can get away with the things he did on WP. First of all, I'm aware of your TLDR clause so I'll try to be as brief as possible (which might still result in a somewhat long text, but it's really for the sake of clarity only). Also, please note that the story might include some of my speculations too just to make up for "continuity". These might or might not be true.
First of all, my interaction with Wookie began not on EN WP, but on SK WP (he edits there under the name of Wookie). First of all he's been a long-time editor on SK WP (which's well-known for its heavy nationalism, autocracy and hostility toward disagreeing opinions for anyone who understands just a little bit of Slovak) and he came to EN WP only recently (March 18, a few weeks before Iaaasi's been blocked for good on the 29th of the same month). My interaction with Bizovne in fact began on SK WP in connection with a discussion on another user's talk page (sorry, it's all Slovak, but I'm including it in hope of being read by someone who understands it). Then a bit later (April 18) I wrote a (somewhat unflattering) note on Wladthemlat's talk page questioning his motives behind some of his edits. That's when he started his more regular edits on EN WP as well, first with a "good hand, bad hand" strategy (he used his "real" account to make "good" i.e. less questionable and offensive edits while his sock IPs to make make the "bad" ones). However I've revealed both his IP socks (with considerable help from himself) and since he made some offensive remarks to me and other Hungarians on my talk page (e.g. called me a fascist, all in Slovak of course) he's been blocked for a month.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago. If you take a look at his edits from before his first block, it was mostly about reverting my, Hobartimus' and Nmate's edits. However after his block has expired he's started to systematically attack/revert/report a user he's never met before, never heard before and obviously never interacted with (because as we know from his previous edits, he's interacted mostly with myself, Hobartimus and Nmate). However a mere month has passed and all of a sudden he's reverting edits of Stubes99's sock accounts. Since I never mentioned Stubes99 at all (and presumably neither did Hobartimus nor Nmate), the only place he could've learned about him and his deeds was via Iaaasi.
You can see the most recent development and the most palpable evidences above, which (together with my little story above) point to the obvious fact that Bizovne has been recruited by Iaaasi for meatpuppetry (i.e. making edits on his own behalf on WP). Since Iaaasi's managed to gain quite a reputation of being an email canvasser. Since he's probably used one of his countless socks to contact Bizovne, it's fairly to easy to prove his affiliation: an admin with appropriate privileges (an arbitrator AFAIK) might check for the email communication between Bizovne and other users and then cross-reference that with Iaaasi's list of sockpuppets. And I'm sure that an email would turn up, which'd be the undeniable proof of Bizovne's meatpuppetry. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The happy fun argument of doom: the Wrong version to protected to is actually the... er... wrong version. :-) You really shouldn't protect the BLP violation into the template; and even if there is a sincere doubt that it is in fact a violation (there isn't, IMO), it should still be removed preemptively.
I'll not unprotect, because having it protected is the right thing to do (and what I was about to do myself), nor will I edit through the protection even though policy, interpreted strictly, demands that I do so. Please do the fix yourself; it's just a template and can survive without that stain in it while the dispute is taking place at no loss of value. — Coren (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've got to run to work, so you stepped in at a right time. I've been trying to get a good discourse going between these guys, and haven't blocked anyone yet - I'd appreciate it if you didn't, either, unless absolutely necessary. Of course, you're your own person, so you're welcome to take whatever action you deem fit. In any case, I'll be back in twelve hours or so. Cheers, m.o.p 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
How could I have been blocked for edit warring when I was trying to remove what I thought was obvious vandalism. I was removing the bracket that he added all the time and other edits that he was overriding. How is that an edit war? -- 86.45.75.42 ( talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey DeltaQuad!!! :) you are a good wiki brotha and you do help put others. I have a request, how do I change my wiki user name? how do I apply for it. I want to change my current wiki user name/account name. Please explain it for me and make it as simple as you can. Thanx.
Msrafiq ( talk) 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to ask (regarding that wiki user/account name change topic), if I change my wiki account name, will this also change the number of edits I have done to wiki, or the duration of time I have been contributing ti wikipedia, because I am an old user and I treasure my contributions to wikipedia, I dont want to lose my user edit count and my user member duration period!!.
One more thing, I have permission to use AWB, will the new name remove my authorization to use AWB?
Thanx again!!
Msrafiq ( talk) 10:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, ready when you are for another run. Cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 21:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi DQ :)
up there ^ in your discussion page, you'd notice I asked (as Msrafiq) to be granted rights to use AWB when my account name had been changed, and you said you would, well its changed now. I had rights to use it as Msrafiq and I would like to be granted that for this account. Thank you once again DQ.
:)
Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 16:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you DQ. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, would you please consider removing the block on this article? No diffs were provided of any edit warring or any explanation as to why a block was needed. I am unaware of anyone having been blocked as an editor. This block seems only to freeze in place a preferred version of certain users at a time when the article is likely to draw reader attention.
Since it will undoubtedly be brought up, I did myself various times try to restore a timeline section of the article which hand been composed by many editors (I neither began the section nor expanded it myself) and which was then deleted according to an edit summary-asserted consensus which does not exist on the discussion page. In any case, I have no intention of restoring the timeline section again myself if no other editor is willing to do so.
I also find it odd that the account requesting the freeze has made no contributions, only reversions, and a strangely selective few at that, on the page.
Please remove the block. Thanks. μηδείς ( talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks DQ. It's on my watchlist as it is so I'll be keeping an eye after the week is up, any nonsense and I'll post another note. All the best. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Delta. Over the past few years, Marshall Sylver, or representatives of his, have been laboring to remove any record of Sylver's documented and reliably sourced criminal history from the page. In its place, they've been placing advertisements for Sylver, his products, and his "hypnotize-your-way-to-success" seminars. (A check of the article Talk Page will demonstrate this.) The latest SPA is 180North, who is now trying the revert-and-get-the-page-locked approach to editing.
Would you mind unlocking the page? I and another editor agreed on my last round of edits. But Sylver's latest "rep" appears to be trying to work the refs. Feel free to review my responses to his comments. Thanks. -- LongLiveReagan ( talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's a little more history of what's been going on for the past few years: [30] [31] [32] [33] The accounts even go so far as to use Sylver's press releases as "reliable sources." -- LongLiveReagan ( talk) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
See [34] Beyond My Ken ( talk) 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
... for thinking outside the box, and protecting the article as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410. Smart call. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the help on the Abuse response email! That was nice of you to do so. Sorry I didn't respond to the email that I sent because I was at my friend's house and I didn't have time to do so.-- Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Delta. IMO IPs are at the root of the disruption here. It seems every week a different IP shows up, edits disruptively, and then disappears. I think there's every indication that there are socks/meats at work, and suspicions have been voiced by more than 1 editor that this is the case. As a matter of fact I filed an SPI: but CU cannot connect an IP with a confirmed account. I strongly urge you to only restrict IPs from editing and allow confirmed users to edit. This will determine once and for all if the IPs are socks/meats. – Lionel ( talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
IPs are at the root of the disruption? I think the root of the disruption is that a certain user will not allow attempts to remove the peacock wording that the article is currently flagged for (by an experienced editor) and that another experienced editor has also attempted to correct. If that certain user would discuss rather than simply blindly reverting anything that comes from an IP, then, there would be much more progress made on the article. 69.89.205.152 ( talk) 01:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I've been using the IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.100.20.87
However, you will note that I did make an account before you blocked said IP from making a new account. I made this account as others also use the IP and as such, I thouht it would easiest to make my own account. Secondly, I made the account so I could sign my post in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Dispute_on_what_a_source_claims.
However, as the account creation was before you blocked me, I'm confused as to what to do. Will I still be able to use this account? If so, is it best to wait until the ban on the IP is lifted?
Gorlack36 ( talk) 18:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Understood, thank you for clearing that up. :)
Gorlack36 ( talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing with regard to User:180north, who is a co-worker of mine and whom you blocked for allegedly using multiple accounts. However, the alleged sockpuppet investigation you conducted (found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive) lasted only six minutes before you blocked 180north. No checkuser was done and nobody else commented in the investigation. This does not seem like much of an investigation to me. The alleged similarity between 180north's edits and the edits by the other users who were subjects of the same sockpuppet investigation is that all of these editors were involved with editing Marshall Sylver. However, 180north disclosed in the first sentence of their very first edit to Wikipedia, "I represent Marshall Sylver." [37]
I don't find it implausible that other people could have been editing on Sylver's behalf back in 2007, in which case 180north should not be charged with and blocked for the alleged sockpuppetry which other people may have engaged in four years ago. From your comment "Quackers" in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ProFromDover/Archive, I assume you are applying the duck test, but this is far from the "obvious case" contemplated by WP:DUCK, due to the four-year gap and the difference in writing style between 180north and the other editors.
Incidentally, 180north was never warned or even questioned about the alleged sockpuppetry before you blocked them, which I believe reflects a lack of assuming good faith.
Finally, I don't understand the clause "The user did explain that the other account noted by Hersfold" in [38] -- there's at least one word missing, or one word too many, there.
I will note that I am a registered Wikipedia editor, but I am submitting these comments as an IP user to avoid having my Wikipedia identity become known at my job. -- 99.140.181.172 ( talk) 01:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 00:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. The witticism about "X and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee" has been around for ages, so it's not original to me (but since 50 cents no longer is enough for a cup of coffee, I adjusted for inflation). Daniel Case ( talk) 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats the page I help with, the only page, but I need help I have no idea what to do, I've won the battle and exposed the villains, but I need help to deal with them and clear the talkpage so that work can continue. There is so much work to get done, and two people have caused such incredible grief and problems I've been to some arbitrator thing and that went okish, sortof, for a while, and now this, just to get one single paragraph of the article improved has cost me so much. So much, and work hasn't even yet begun. You'll see as you look all the detail, but two things I can stand up for more than anything, I'm truthful and I can deliver on all claims and I want the work, which is just starting to go ahead as smoothly as possible. there is an FAR which I began, it's to improve the article where I couldn't do it alone, and it is perfectly legitimate and necessary. There are new sections, new material, updated facts to go in there, and the article is in a mess. The talkpage needs cleaning up, I don't know the commands for it, the bloke told me {{archive upper}} but that doesn't move things to archive, he was just , well, you'll work it out if you have time. Or please, help refer this to whoever you can to help me. I can't go through another 20 hour stretch of learning procedures. I need help I need adopting. Penyulap talk 03:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)