![]() | This account is a
sockpuppet of
Carriearchdale (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
A barnstar for your contributions to our June 2016 editathons
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Sorry you had to go through all that rubbish. You are an excellent editor here. You are a fine asset to Wikipedia. Keep on with your fine work! Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
You deserve one as I do. Sharifmaloy ( talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
...For your quick approval of my new article for Erik Satie's Le Fils des étoiles. I'm just trying to do right by a composer whose music has given me much comfort throughout life. Cheers! TheBawbb ( talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
hii Wikiboykrish ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! NathanLeeFanPage ( talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)NathanLeeFanPage
![]() |
NathanLeeFanPage ( talk) 05:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC) |
How nice of you! Thanks! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant ( talk) 05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you declined the CSD nomination for K. Johnston because it has "credible claim of significance" although with only 1 source and nothing of significance showing up in a simple Google search, I have opened an AfD for this article. — Music1201 talk 04:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, As per your earlier recommendations all sources were changed from primary to secondary with reliable sources (over 10) and heavy editing as per recommendations.
The only thing reverted back to was adding a new sub heading for under career which was critical to the subject.
Thanks in advance. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-from-Montreal ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, thanks for reviewing Zero Night.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and question. The original text for this post was written by one of my students for our editathon in my class. The references were sadly cited incorrectly, duplicated, and there were a number of factual errors. Also, in order to minimize pov concerns I went in and made some factual edits. Some of the information was simply incorrect. JVadera ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, Could you please help with the references? Thanks Beesting101 ( talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Beesting101
for Fradl Victuallers ( talk) 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks a lot! Sorry, I am new and am messing up a lot of stuff. I am only now learning how to navigate edits on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for cleaning up my first page! Please let me know what sort of edits I should be making to make the page better.
Also, regarding the deletion, it was repeated later in the text, so I deleted it. But with the new format, it makes a lot of sense to keep it. Once again, thanks a lot for the edits! ElCapoDeTodos ( talk) 05:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) |
Greetings and Thanks. Appreciate your taking out time and all the help with the pages. Wish you great time.
Signed Maxkrish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkrish ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, will sure let you know. Have great weekend! Cheers. User:Maxkrish —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for you help, I am not used to the anglophone wikipedia, and using the translation tool does not do all the job! I ma currently in Bern in a wiki workshop but will work again on the article later -- Nattes à chat ( talk) 09:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Thank you for all your help with everything
A.K.A Nathan H. Lee. It was my first article, thank you for cleaning everything up Beesting101 ( talk) 07:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC) |
There are multiple pictures of him on his Facebook page. Also, what are your thoughts on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umi_Garrett?
For facebook, I think you have to log on then type in his full name. Pictures should show up
Thanks so much
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a picture. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.140.154.209 (
talk)
03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
I realize you are already on board but thought you deserved an invitation too.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, I am new to Wikipedia and was just wondering what the criteria for becoming an admin is. How long should I wait before applying and how many edits should I make? Thanks LionPrince101 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant LionPrince101 ( talk) 06:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Help please, user:DinosaurKiller has constantly vandalized pages including Umi Garrett and Pope Alexander VI. I think it would be best to block him or her. THANKS. LionPrince101 ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
![]() |
Thanks for your advice LionPrince101 ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
Sorry to keep bothering you, but he or she vandalized the Pope page again. I left a warning on his/her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionPrince101 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hell sir,I add the new citation on Vicky Kewat page . Please remove your tag from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur Anant Singh ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Julia Friedman. It is greatly appreciated. However, might I ask you, did you know that this article is currently under debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman. Could I possibly intrude upon you -- since you did make important contributions to the page -- to vote for KEEP? If you think the page has merit to continue to improve. I would greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. Thanks -- Wwwwhatupprrr ( talk) 20:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon
Our next events: Women in Entertainment and Women in Jewish History |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
There seems to be a Kadya Molodovsky and a Kadia Molodovky article .... Victuallers ( talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
It wasn't a competition but if it was then Big Iron won it. | |
---|---|
MENA Women Artists worldwide online edit-a-thon
Starting now: Women in Entertainment and Women in Jewish History |
-- Victuallers ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Good Morning Fouette'! Need your help with the page Qasim Mehdi. Have completed nearly everything there. But since he is a senior and well-known molecular biologist from South Asia, will appreciate your kindly looking into the page and fixing any possible flaws. Many thanks. Good day! Maxkrish ( talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC) User:Maxkrish 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Fouette' a big thank your way! Thanks a million for your contributions to the page of Prof. Mehdi. The page looks wonderful. Thank you for your kind attention and time. Appreciate it greatly. Please keep up the good work. Hope I could also assist you with some of your work. Maxkrish ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant.
Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Best Editor Nominee |
Appreciate your valuable edits and contributions to Wikipedia, in addition to your care and kindness. Maxkrish ( talk) 19:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) |
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
Delivered by Rosiestep ( talk) 04:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage. (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
On 11 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yiddish poet Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim began writing poetry to cheer up fellow inmates at the Kaiserwald concentration camp during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I seem to always screw up the references and punctuation thing! I really appreciate your edit. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 19:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant thank you for your help with creating the Ian Stylezz page but I am in a senseless battle with someone ever since I've been working on this page for whatever reason. They have started a discussion about deleting the page I made. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance WbPubEnt ( talk) 03:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Sorry you had to go through all that rubbish. You are an excellent editor here. You are a fine asset to Wikipedia. Keep on with your fine work! Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for the star! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I would help if I could, but I've never done anything like that before, and to be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about. It's probably easy to do, so I'll make sure to figure it out, but for the time being, you should probably ask someone who has done it before. Sorry. Cmr08 ( talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) np, I found another editor who is try ing. Thanks tho Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. In the context of trying to defuse tensions, is this page really necessary? Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I suppose I could prepare as I go offline. I was trying to make things easier for myself to put a report together. The following started already. After a scary incident about a month or so ago that @Coffee tried to assist me with regarding the same editor who then was harassing me on wiki to the point were he was sending me unwanted emails even after I asked for it stop. It was creepy then, and that the following has started again, and it is still creepy, so shortly after you specifically warned about that, I decided to be proactive and possibly get some sort of something done so he will not bother me and follow me around. I dropped everything after the last harassment incident where he was harassing me because as I told Coffee at the time, I was afraid he might get inflamed more if I pursued some remedy. That did not work. If he wasn't following me I doubt he would ever even notice that page anyways. If he would stop following me, I could just delete the page. It will only be needed if the harassment and following continues. I ask for your advice today. Should I just sweep everything under the rug again? This whole pattern of harassing and following from him needs to stop. Apparently the only way I can stop it is to not go on wikipedia anymore. I already stopped writing women in red articles. The fun is not there any longer. Please let me know what you would prefer I do? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am wondering if you could supply more diffs within your recent comment over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.224.183.184. I think these will be very helpful. Thanks. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in the page and for denying the speedy delete. I am in no way affiliated with Shapur Mozaffarian, simply a fan of the luxury watches he carries at his store in San Francisco. This is my first Wikipedia page and I'm really enjoying the experience. I just added a link to a New York Times article revealing Mozaffarian as the designated jeweler for Barry Bonds. When do you think it would be appropriate to return the Lauren Bacall image etc? I also look forward to more collaboration. Dmachardy ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy
Thanks for those links to Persian Wikipedia and Google. Great idea! I think I'll hold off adding those images back in at least for the moment. How does the approval process work, i.e. when will the deletion notice at the top be removed? Dmachardy ( talk) 06:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
A barnstar for your contributions to our June 2016 editathons
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
by maybe on ani happy ARD disruption at AFD thread by happysadhappy diff [6]
![]() ![]()
It wasn't a competition but if it was then Big Iron won it. | |
---|---|
MENA Women Artists worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernesto53 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos!( Ernesto53 ( talk) 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC))
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
04:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
Mike V Bbb23 The Wordsmith Newyorkbrad Montanabw Mike_V Jzsj Maybeparaphrased
User HappyValley Editor placed this tag on my user page.
User HappyValleyEditor placed this tag on my user page
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant&curid=49777749&diff=729317870&oldid=729317805
This account is a suspected sock puppet of Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.
Question
Perhaps it is all a big silly mix-up? Could one or more admins, checkusers, or other editors please address gravedancing
I am pending a decison, if whether it is worth it or not to even attempt to appeal this block when the grave dancing has already begun.
By the way, I am having off-wiki telephone calls from HVE who I assert is allegedly guilty of the WP:OUTING policy? Could someone perhaps forward these questions to OTRS? Thank you all. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 12:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Now this part is quite rich, A rush to judgement has occurred here.
KoshVorlon @KoshVorlon,
If you have time may I hear your answers to the questions here that I posted above? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 13:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fouetté, although editors do not really get to vote on whether to revoke Talk page access of a blocked user, they do have a point. I suggest you stop recording all of these comments on your Talk page. It's fairly easy to store them on your computer so you don't lose your thoughts, and this page is getting unwieldy, cluttered as it is with long section headers for each set of quoted comments and followed by the comments.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Lengthy random out-of-context copypastes from other Wikipedia discussions. (collapsed by Softlavender ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per @MikeV doncram who is both oversight and a check user Soliciting and evaluating private evidence runs completely afoul of our blocking policies. The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. kosh vorlon
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellvue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Since Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect, shouldn't Fouette be unblocked immediately now? Perhaps with an apology, too? I'm a latecomer here, and I previously followed only some of two ANI items that went on, but I see no valid evidence at all here of any sockpuppeting involving Fouette. I do see validity in checkuser User:Bbb23's skeptical comments below about the "free for all". The purported evidence includes no actual evidence, IMHO. The purported evidence includes: mention that Wordsmith conducted an informal investigation, with this diff that contains no evidence. But that is just a diff where Wordsmith states their conclusion, without evidence! Editor User:Elektrik Fanne above states they were immediately convinced by seeing Maybeparaphrased's first posting somewhere that they must be the same person as Fouette, but Elekrik Fanne provides no diffs at all for anyone else to compare. And in fact Elektrik Fanne gives no explanation why they are convinced. This is not evidence. Editor user:The Wordsmith mentions "a rather ominous warning (bordering on a threat)" with a diff, but Wordsmith themself has used administrative revdel tool to eliminate the purported near-threat, so I for one cannot see that. Editor user:Winkelvi, who did see the purported near-threat, comments above that it could be interpreted differently, not as a threat, and even Wordsmith agrees. Editor User:Softlavender asserts "There is abundant circumstantial evidence that Carriearchdale (aka Fouette) created sleeper accounts" but their evidence is non-sensical. Their "evidence" is that Carriearchdale's account was created in November 2007 but Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014. I will believe without checking that Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014, but a) so what and b) where is any shred of evidence that Carriearchdale created any other accounts? Please understand, I don't mean to criticize anyone, really, for thinking what they think, because each of us have our own personal experiences which inform us differently in how to interpret anything we see. But as for me, with my different experience, I don't see anything here. Given that Bbb23 points out there's poor reasoning about geography in the free-for-all, and so on, I don't understand why Bbb23 did perform the checkuser check or whatever you call it. But they did, and they found no association. I have participated at SPI only a few times, and maybe I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. Am I wrong that accusers are supposed to provide diffs, to provide actual evidence? (I certainly thought diffs were required when I opened an SPI, myself. In edit mode here, there is warning Do not make accusations without providing evidence.) And given that the checkuser check was done, and no connection was found, shouldn't this be closed with some consensus judgment that the allegations were false, or at least found to be completely unsupported? And shouldn't the block be reversed, by Wordsmith preferably or by some other administrator? I do apologize if I am merely piling on in some unfair way, or if I should be making a request at Wordsmith's Talk page or commenting at Fouette's instead. sincerely, --doncram 9:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Doncram, you wrote, "Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect". How did you come to that conclusion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) That it has been found to be incorrect is my summary view, based on what I explain: I see no evidence, and purported evidence is not evidence, and if I understand correctly the checkuser check found no association (maybe just because the Carriearchdale account is stale). I should add that I used the Editor interaction utility for a while to look for similarities of their edits when they edited the same page, and I saw no similarity of the edits. Also the interactions showed nearest time of editing the same place was one year, I think. The bad kind of sockpuppeting is when an editor creates false support of their position in a discussion by having an apparently independent editor agree with them. That cannot ever have occurred because they never edited the same discussion. Your point may be that technically it is a logical leap that I am making to go from "no evidence" to "assertion is incorrect", but I happen to think that is the conclusion we should reach. Along the lines of "A person is innocent until proven guilty", which is how the criminal justice system in my country (the U.S.) is supposed to work, and then "Innocent" follows from "not proven guilty". BTW, I also meant to say I have no association with Fouette at all that I know of until a few days ago, and then it is only minimal association. (I was pinged when they quoted me at ANI about an AFD, then we had minimal interaction clarifying about that, and I noticed Fouette did me a small favor of approving an article at AFC for me. The AFC would have been approved soon anyhow. I suppose they browsed my contributions and saw that the article was obviously approvable. Likewise I browsed a bit more about Fouette's activity, and the block, and found my way to this SPI.) I am an independent observer looking at this SPI, and I just see nothing here. --doncram 10:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Your mistake is that it wasn't proven wrong. Fouette is indeed a sockpuppet, the behavioral evidence, grammatical quirks, Userpages, and the way their offwiki accounts link to the same email address is conclusive. Everything of relevance is on ANI. Checkuser didn't disprove it, Checkuser says nothing because Carriearchdale was blocked over a year ago and Checkuser only contains 90 days worth of IP logs. As far as the IP, it geolocates to King County, Washington. (Redacted) It would be difficult for Fouette to quack any louder than they already are. Also, you can block sockpuppets without an SPI. This one was filed because it was suspected that more accounts were linked to it. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Checkuser didn't disprove it
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) @Doncram: I tried to be clear in my findings. I made many. I also criticized certain technical inferences drawn by editors on this page. However, at no time did I find that Fouette and Carriearchdale were technically unrelated. As I stated at the outset, Carriearchdale is stale. Therefore, I couldn't make such a finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) There's nothing more to do here. If a clerk wants to merge this case with the Carrie case, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 8:45 am, Today (UTC−4)
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) |
Note: the editor's talkpage access was already revoked (by The Wordsmith) several hours ago. I suggest that others stop posting here also. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep ( talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@ The Wordsmith: Please change the user page of the user to only show the blocked template, as done in other cases. VarunFEB2003 ( talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
norm
and ccnorm
functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the
TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore.
[22]Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tab
in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift
and Tab
in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row.
[30]Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)! |
Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Smallwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon ( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Smallwood (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This account is a
sockpuppet of
Carriearchdale (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
A barnstar for your contributions to our June 2016 editathons
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Sorry you had to go through all that rubbish. You are an excellent editor here. You are a fine asset to Wikipedia. Keep on with your fine work! Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
![]() |
You deserve one as I do. Sharifmaloy ( talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
...For your quick approval of my new article for Erik Satie's Le Fils des étoiles. I'm just trying to do right by a composer whose music has given me much comfort throughout life. Cheers! TheBawbb ( talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
hii Wikiboykrish ( talk) 06:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! NathanLeeFanPage ( talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)NathanLeeFanPage
![]() |
NathanLeeFanPage ( talk) 05:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC) |
How nice of you! Thanks! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant ( talk) 05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you declined the CSD nomination for K. Johnston because it has "credible claim of significance" although with only 1 source and nothing of significance showing up in a simple Google search, I have opened an AfD for this article. — Music1201 talk 04:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, As per your earlier recommendations all sources were changed from primary to secondary with reliable sources (over 10) and heavy editing as per recommendations.
The only thing reverted back to was adding a new sub heading for under career which was critical to the subject.
Thanks in advance. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-from-Montreal ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, thanks for reviewing Zero Night.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and question. The original text for this post was written by one of my students for our editathon in my class. The references were sadly cited incorrectly, duplicated, and there were a number of factual errors. Also, in order to minimize pov concerns I went in and made some factual edits. Some of the information was simply incorrect. JVadera ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, Could you please help with the references? Thanks Beesting101 ( talk) 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Beesting101
for Fradl Victuallers ( talk) 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thanks a lot! Sorry, I am new and am messing up a lot of stuff. I am only now learning how to navigate edits on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for cleaning up my first page! Please let me know what sort of edits I should be making to make the page better.
Also, regarding the deletion, it was repeated later in the text, so I deleted it. But with the new format, it makes a lot of sense to keep it. Once again, thanks a lot for the edits! ElCapoDeTodos ( talk) 05:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) |
Greetings and Thanks. Appreciate your taking out time and all the help with the pages. Wish you great time.
Signed Maxkrish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxkrish ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, will sure let you know. Have great weekend! Cheers. User:Maxkrish —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for you help, I am not used to the anglophone wikipedia, and using the translation tool does not do all the job! I ma currently in Bern in a wiki workshop but will work again on the article later -- Nattes à chat ( talk) 09:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Thank you for all your help with everything
A.K.A Nathan H. Lee. It was my first article, thank you for cleaning everything up Beesting101 ( talk) 07:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC) |
There are multiple pictures of him on his Facebook page. Also, what are your thoughts on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Umi_Garrett?
For facebook, I think you have to log on then type in his full name. Pictures should show up
Thanks so much
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a picture. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.140.154.209 (
talk)
03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
I realize you are already on board but thought you deserved an invitation too.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Hi Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, I am new to Wikipedia and was just wondering what the criteria for becoming an admin is. How long should I wait before applying and how many edits should I make? Thanks LionPrince101 ( talk) 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
Thank you Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant LionPrince101 ( talk) 06:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Help please, user:DinosaurKiller has constantly vandalized pages including Umi Garrett and Pope Alexander VI. I think it would be best to block him or her. THANKS. LionPrince101 ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)LionPrince101
![]() |
Thanks for your advice LionPrince101 ( talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
Sorry to keep bothering you, but he or she vandalized the Pope page again. I left a warning on his/her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionPrince101 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hell sir,I add the new citation on Vicky Kewat page . Please remove your tag from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakur Anant Singh ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Julia Friedman. It is greatly appreciated. However, might I ask you, did you know that this article is currently under debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Friedman. Could I possibly intrude upon you -- since you did make important contributions to the page -- to vote for KEEP? If you think the page has merit to continue to improve. I would greatly appreciate your vote of confidence. Thanks -- Wwwwhatupprrr ( talk) 20:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon
Our next events: Women in Entertainment and Women in Jewish History |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
There seems to be a Kadya Molodovsky and a Kadia Molodovky article .... Victuallers ( talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
It wasn't a competition but if it was then Big Iron won it. | |
---|---|
MENA Women Artists worldwide online edit-a-thon
Starting now: Women in Entertainment and Women in Jewish History |
-- Victuallers ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Good Morning Fouette'! Need your help with the page Qasim Mehdi. Have completed nearly everything there. But since he is a senior and well-known molecular biologist from South Asia, will appreciate your kindly looking into the page and fixing any possible flaws. Many thanks. Good day! Maxkrish ( talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC) User:Maxkrish 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Fouette' a big thank your way! Thanks a million for your contributions to the page of Prof. Mehdi. The page looks wonderful. Thank you for your kind attention and time. Appreciate it greatly. Please keep up the good work. Hope I could also assist you with some of your work. Maxkrish ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant.
Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Best Editor Nominee |
Appreciate your valuable edits and contributions to Wikipedia, in addition to your care and kindness. Maxkrish ( talk) 19:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) |
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
Delivered by Rosiestep ( talk) 04:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage. (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
On 11 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yiddish poet Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim began writing poetry to cheer up fellow inmates at the Kaiserwald concentration camp during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Rivka Basman Ben-Hayim), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I seem to always screw up the references and punctuation thing! I really appreciate your edit. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 19:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant thank you for your help with creating the Ian Stylezz page but I am in a senseless battle with someone ever since I've been working on this page for whatever reason. They have started a discussion about deleting the page I made. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance WbPubEnt ( talk) 03:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Rosiestep ( talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Sorry you had to go through all that rubbish. You are an excellent editor here. You are a fine asset to Wikipedia. Keep on with your fine work! Maybeparaphrased ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for the star! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I would help if I could, but I've never done anything like that before, and to be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about. It's probably easy to do, so I'll make sure to figure it out, but for the time being, you should probably ask someone who has done it before. Sorry. Cmr08 ( talk) 07:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC) np, I found another editor who is try ing. Thanks tho Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. In the context of trying to defuse tensions, is this page really necessary? Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I suppose I could prepare as I go offline. I was trying to make things easier for myself to put a report together. The following started already. After a scary incident about a month or so ago that @Coffee tried to assist me with regarding the same editor who then was harassing me on wiki to the point were he was sending me unwanted emails even after I asked for it stop. It was creepy then, and that the following has started again, and it is still creepy, so shortly after you specifically warned about that, I decided to be proactive and possibly get some sort of something done so he will not bother me and follow me around. I dropped everything after the last harassment incident where he was harassing me because as I told Coffee at the time, I was afraid he might get inflamed more if I pursued some remedy. That did not work. If he wasn't following me I doubt he would ever even notice that page anyways. If he would stop following me, I could just delete the page. It will only be needed if the harassment and following continues. I ask for your advice today. Should I just sweep everything under the rug again? This whole pattern of harassing and following from him needs to stop. Apparently the only way I can stop it is to not go on wikipedia anymore. I already stopped writing women in red articles. The fun is not there any longer. Please let me know what you would prefer I do? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I am wondering if you could supply more diffs within your recent comment over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.224.183.184. I think these will be very helpful. Thanks. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest in the page and for denying the speedy delete. I am in no way affiliated with Shapur Mozaffarian, simply a fan of the luxury watches he carries at his store in San Francisco. This is my first Wikipedia page and I'm really enjoying the experience. I just added a link to a New York Times article revealing Mozaffarian as the designated jeweler for Barry Bonds. When do you think it would be appropriate to return the Lauren Bacall image etc? I also look forward to more collaboration. Dmachardy ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy
Thanks for those links to Persian Wikipedia and Google. Great idea! I think I'll hold off adding those images back in at least for the moment. How does the approval process work, i.e. when will the deletion notice at the top be removed? Dmachardy ( talk) 06:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Dmachardy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
A barnstar for your contributions to our June 2016 editathons
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
by maybe on ani happy ARD disruption at AFD thread by happysadhappy diff [6]
![]() ![]()
It wasn't a competition but if it was then Big Iron won it. | |
---|---|
MENA Women Artists worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernesto53 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your nice comments. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with Wikipedia. Kudos!( Ernesto53 ( talk) 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC))
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me
04:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC) |
Mike V Bbb23 The Wordsmith Newyorkbrad Montanabw Mike_V Jzsj Maybeparaphrased
User HappyValley Editor placed this tag on my user page.
User HappyValleyEditor placed this tag on my user page
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant&curid=49777749&diff=729317870&oldid=729317805
This account is a suspected sock puppet of Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.
Question
Perhaps it is all a big silly mix-up? Could one or more admins, checkusers, or other editors please address gravedancing
I am pending a decison, if whether it is worth it or not to even attempt to appeal this block when the grave dancing has already begun.
By the way, I am having off-wiki telephone calls from HVE who I assert is allegedly guilty of the WP:OUTING policy? Could someone perhaps forward these questions to OTRS? Thank you all. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 12:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Now this part is quite rich, A rush to judgement has occurred here.
KoshVorlon @KoshVorlon,
If you have time may I hear your answers to the questions here that I posted above? Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 13:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fouetté, although editors do not really get to vote on whether to revoke Talk page access of a blocked user, they do have a point. I suggest you stop recording all of these comments on your Talk page. It's fairly easy to store them on your computer so you don't lose your thoughts, and this page is getting unwieldy, cluttered as it is with long section headers for each set of quoted comments and followed by the comments.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Lengthy random out-of-context copypastes from other Wikipedia discussions. (collapsed by Softlavender ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per @MikeV doncram who is both oversight and a check user Soliciting and evaluating private evidence runs completely afoul of our blocking policies. The community has firmly established that administrators may not base blocks off of evidence that cannot be peer reviewed. kosh vorlon
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellvue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Since Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect, shouldn't Fouette be unblocked immediately now? Perhaps with an apology, too? I'm a latecomer here, and I previously followed only some of two ANI items that went on, but I see no valid evidence at all here of any sockpuppeting involving Fouette. I do see validity in checkuser User:Bbb23's skeptical comments below about the "free for all". The purported evidence includes no actual evidence, IMHO. The purported evidence includes: mention that Wordsmith conducted an informal investigation, with this diff that contains no evidence. But that is just a diff where Wordsmith states their conclusion, without evidence! Editor User:Elektrik Fanne above states they were immediately convinced by seeing Maybeparaphrased's first posting somewhere that they must be the same person as Fouette, but Elekrik Fanne provides no diffs at all for anyone else to compare. And in fact Elektrik Fanne gives no explanation why they are convinced. This is not evidence. Editor user:The Wordsmith mentions "a rather ominous warning (bordering on a threat)" with a diff, but Wordsmith themself has used administrative revdel tool to eliminate the purported near-threat, so I for one cannot see that. Editor user:Winkelvi, who did see the purported near-threat, comments above that it could be interpreted differently, not as a threat, and even Wordsmith agrees. Editor User:Softlavender asserts "There is abundant circumstantial evidence that Carriearchdale (aka Fouette) created sleeper accounts" but their evidence is non-sensical. Their "evidence" is that Carriearchdale's account was created in November 2007 but Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014. I will believe without checking that Carriearchdale did not edit until 2014, but a) so what and b) where is any shred of evidence that Carriearchdale created any other accounts? Please understand, I don't mean to criticize anyone, really, for thinking what they think, because each of us have our own personal experiences which inform us differently in how to interpret anything we see. But as for me, with my different experience, I don't see anything here. Given that Bbb23 points out there's poor reasoning about geography in the free-for-all, and so on, I don't understand why Bbb23 did perform the checkuser check or whatever you call it. But they did, and they found no association. I have participated at SPI only a few times, and maybe I misunderstand how this is supposed to work. Am I wrong that accusers are supposed to provide diffs, to provide actual evidence? (I certainly thought diffs were required when I opened an SPI, myself. In edit mode here, there is warning Do not make accusations without providing evidence.) And given that the checkuser check was done, and no connection was found, shouldn't this be closed with some consensus judgment that the allegations were false, or at least found to be completely unsupported? And shouldn't the block be reversed, by Wordsmith preferably or by some other administrator? I do apologize if I am merely piling on in some unfair way, or if I should be making a request at Wordsmith's Talk page or commenting at Fouette's instead. sincerely, --doncram 9:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Doncram, you wrote, "Wordsmith blocked Fouette for appearing to be a sockpuppet of Carriearchdale, and that has been found to be incorrect". How did you come to that conclusion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) That it has been found to be incorrect is my summary view, based on what I explain: I see no evidence, and purported evidence is not evidence, and if I understand correctly the checkuser check found no association (maybe just because the Carriearchdale account is stale). I should add that I used the Editor interaction utility for a while to look for similarities of their edits when they edited the same page, and I saw no similarity of the edits. Also the interactions showed nearest time of editing the same place was one year, I think. The bad kind of sockpuppeting is when an editor creates false support of their position in a discussion by having an apparently independent editor agree with them. That cannot ever have occurred because they never edited the same discussion. Your point may be that technically it is a logical leap that I am making to go from "no evidence" to "assertion is incorrect", but I happen to think that is the conclusion we should reach. Along the lines of "A person is innocent until proven guilty", which is how the criminal justice system in my country (the U.S.) is supposed to work, and then "Innocent" follows from "not proven guilty". BTW, I also meant to say I have no association with Fouette at all that I know of until a few days ago, and then it is only minimal association. (I was pinged when they quoted me at ANI about an AFD, then we had minimal interaction clarifying about that, and I noticed Fouette did me a small favor of approving an article at AFC for me. The AFC would have been approved soon anyhow. I suppose they browsed my contributions and saw that the article was obviously approvable. Likewise I browsed a bit more about Fouette's activity, and the block, and found my way to this SPI.) I am an independent observer looking at this SPI, and I just see nothing here. --doncram 10:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Your mistake is that it wasn't proven wrong. Fouette is indeed a sockpuppet, the behavioral evidence, grammatical quirks, Userpages, and the way their offwiki accounts link to the same email address is conclusive. Everything of relevance is on ANI. Checkuser didn't disprove it, Checkuser says nothing because Carriearchdale was blocked over a year ago and Checkuser only contains 90 days worth of IP logs. As far as the IP, it geolocates to King County, Washington. (Redacted) It would be difficult for Fouette to quack any louder than they already are. Also, you can block sockpuppets without an SPI. This one was filed because it was suspected that more accounts were linked to it. The WordsmithTalk to me 10:49 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Checkuser didn't disprove it
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) @Doncram: I tried to be clear in my findings. I made many. I also criticized certain technical inferences drawn by editors on this page. However, at no time did I find that Fouette and Carriearchdale were technically unrelated. As I stated at the outset, Carriearchdale is stale. Therefore, I couldn't make such a finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:19 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) There's nothing more to do here. If a clerk wants to merge this case with the Carrie case, that's fine. If not, that's fine, too. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 8:45 am, Today (UTC−4)
It's hard to watch this free-for-all and not comment. Users are drawing all sorts of inferences on very little data. I'm assuming that The Wordsmith is correct when they state that Carrie said somewhere they were editing from the Pacific time zone (which, btw, is a fairly large area), but I don't know how they can know (a) that the IP geolocates to the Seattle area or (b) what part of the world Fouette is editing from. With wireless providers like T-Mobile geolocates are largely illusory. Nor will you necessarily find services that supposedly identify location agree. For example, db-IP says that the IP in question is located in Bellevue, whereas geolocate itself says that the IP is located in Norton, Massachusetts, a couple of thousand miles away. As for Fouette, not being a CU, The Wordsmith can't possibly know where that user is editing from. I think that the inference is simply an extrapolation from the behavioral evidence. If the behavioral evidence is persuasive that Fouette is a sock of Carrie, then they must be editing from the same location. Sorry folks, but it doesn't work that way. Mind you, I'm not objecting to the block of Fouette. I have not read the behavioral evidence presented at ANI. But technically people should be more careful about drawing conclusions that aren't based on facts. You folk can now go back to your lively discussion, although I'm not sure how much value it is to the socking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) |
Note: the editor's talkpage access was already revoked (by The Wordsmith) several hours ago. I suggest that others stop posting here also. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep ( talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@ The Wordsmith: Please change the user page of the user to only show the blocked template, as done in other cases. VarunFEB2003 ( talk) 07:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
norm
and ccnorm
functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the
TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore.
[22]Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Tab
in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift
and Tab
in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row.
[30]Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)! |
Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Smallwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon ( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carol Smallwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Smallwood (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)