This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi. Putting this here because I am very much unsure about where to go since the case is already closed.
My run in with IrishLass does not give me the impression that she and KellyAna is the same person. Although it is clear, from edits such as this [1] that they do know each other of wiki.
The RFCU makes the claim that the two never talk to each other, but this is not quite true; This is not quite true, they are policing each others talk pages and inform when alterations is made; [2] and [3].
The lack of overlap between editing time is striking, but is consistent with one editor having internet acces at home while the other edits from work.
My view is that WP:AGF leads us to assume meatpuppetry and not sockpuppetry. This is important because it implies that Irishlass could be acting in good faith. Taemyr ( talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, As u have correctly identified, multiple throw away sock puppets are messing around in articles Mudaliar Sengunthar Devadasi and Gatti_Mudalis. If possible can you please semi protect all the above articles so that it is easier for genuine editors to work. Saedirof ( talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I went to the page you recommended re disputes and have added my information to Delicious Carbuncle's request. [ [4]]
I'm sorry you thought what I was saying was just an accusation. You are incorrect in saying it is unsubstantiated as its well supported by evidence, self admitted by the people in question, see Delicious Carbuncle's ( talk)talk page.
I would have just appreciated your help without assuming I have any other agenda than to stop someone stalking me. That's all I can say. You cannot know what I have been through at the hands of the before mentioned people. But it is irrevelant I guess - except that it has now spilled onto wikipedia and a totally unrelated editor is being accused of being me in rather nasty circumstances.
Restawhile ( talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile
[5] I know it can be hard, seeing as how I'm so unpopular. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I don't quite agree with your assessment of this sockpuppet case. I find that the creation date of the users match too well with Dana creating an account to edit his own article and then creating new accounts whenever the someone asks if he is Dana. Notice how the users just stop editing when they are being asked if they are Dana, and never defend themselves, and then keep editing with the same arguments.
I know that you are a way more experienced editor than me, and that you are experienced with sock cases, but I find this case to be hurried too much. Is there some procedure to get a checkuser done by asking to other admin or to get the case reviewed by a different admin? I don't want to "admin-shop", but I don't really feel confortable with your handling of the case, and I would like another admin with checkuser privileges to look at it and confirm that it's necessary to make a checkuser.
It just looks to me like an evident case, even if I couldn't find any actual smoking gun to point it. There is also more circumstancial evidence, like Dana and those users having all of them two spaces after every end of sentence on all comments, this being something that only happens to a percentage of users of wikipedia, and that I forgot to include on the case.
I thought of sending you a private email, but since you always say that you want to talk things on the open, I'm posting here. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, Are you interested in popping by for a chat with the NTWW? All you need is a working headset, a glass of water (trust me, all the talking gets tiring :) and skype on your computer (it's free). We'd love to have a knowledgeable chap such as yourself on ;) Regards, Anthøny 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I wouldnt mind talking to Jehochman myself although I am not on Skype right now. I was earlier however.-- Filll ( talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This was fairly painless! :-) BTW, do you know if the arbitrators watch the talk page. I posted this, but I can't remember whether talk pages and main pages are mixed up together in watchlists or whether they show up separately. I was thinking of asking for advice somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. I bring something related to violation on our user naming policy and possible SSP. You're very strict to inappropriate wording or comment by editors, so I think you can clear this up. A new user named Chibalnom ( talk · contribs) nominates Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies
At first the article looks quite mess without reliable citations, but I know the school is a notable school for gifted students in South Korea. However, his name concerns me more that the article, because it refers to "son of bitch" in Korean and his user page also is written with "Chibal!". He seems to be very knowledgeable of all the procedure for AFD on contrary to his registered date. Not to mention, the name is a blatant violation on the user name policy but I think he is likely a sock of this non-Korean editor. [8] Since the romanization is not following the Revised Romanization, generally used method to transcribe Korean language into English here, I guess he pretends to be Korean. In addition, his eagerness toward Korean academic institutions and DAB pages, the two people could be the same person. Please look into this case, Thanks. -- Appletrees ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: [9]. Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt ( talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{ cite web}} primarily? Cirt ( talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt ( talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.
For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings ( talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.
I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.
As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's ( talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you closed the SSP recommending WP:DE, which I am not debating. But if the community follows your recommendation it leads to ANI, which you yourself called "A place that fuels drama". Is it no advisable that parties conserned should pursue their conserns at WP:RFC/U. Igor Berger ( talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re [10] and the rest: thanks. It will help a lot; indeed it already has William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. If hat's the crucial point leading to an indefblock of Giovanni33, I must say that leaving out the crucial fact that the "idiosyncratic POV" is US=massive terrorist ringleader, the "narrow set of articles"=those articles which imply the US is a massive terrorist ringleader and the "narrow geographical area is San Francisco!! does strengthen your argument a bit. Put it in, and your argument fails, I'm afraid. Not that I am particularly upset if Giovanni has gone, but if you think that every IP/ account in future (or in the past!) editing with that POV from Northern California is a sockpuppet of G33, we are going to see a hell of a lot of false positives. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Three administrators have endorsed the block. You are the lone opposition. See below, as well as the SSP report talk page and the unblock denial on the user's talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as I like Giovanni, I would agree that he is using sockpuppets. For example, with only about 20 edits to his name, Supergreenred removes John Smiths comments from his talk page here, something which Giovanni habitually does. In the next edit John Smith notes the obvious: [11]. John Smith was Gio's opponent in the arbcom case and they have a long history. Another possibility: Gio's opponents are setting him up by creating socks that look like him. Entirely possible, and very easy to do, so there is some ambiguity. ^^James^^ ( talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Bearian ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This Barnstar is given for quick and valiant action against a vandal who has harassed many a fine editor. Kudos! Bearian ( talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Wooo! I don't have on of these yet. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ultramarine makes some interesting points on Rafael's talk page. Wanted to let you know in case you missed them. John Smith's ( talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If he is to be considered for unblocking, surely he needs to admit to his sockpuppetry and disclose all accounts/IPs/etc that he has been using. Though, as I mention above, Ultramarine feels that there is new evidence that points to Giovanni being the puppeteer, rather than Rafael (which would make Rafael a sock). John Smith's ( talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask your advice, because I think you're familiar with procedures related to sockpuppets. I'm inclined to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from User:Iantresman's userpage. The suspected sockpuppet reports ( first , second) didn't find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. The template was placed on the user page on April 10, around the time of filing the second suspected sockpuppet report, by ScienceApologist. I proposed on Iantresman's talk page removing the sockpuppet template and no one has objected. Would I be violating any policy or usual procedure if I were to delete the template? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Tsyko ( talk · contribs) was a obvious sleeper sock who appeared at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist with a grudge against ScienceApologist. I made an on-wiki request at the RfArb workshop to checkuser the account against Iantresman, since it seemed pretty obvious, but the request languished. Ultimately I asked Raul654 to look at it, since socks of banned users who disrupt ArbCom cases are A Bad Thing. Raul654 confirmed that Iantresman==Tsyko (though proxying for a banned user didn't stop Martinphi from reinserting Ian's "evidence", but that's another story).
Anyhow, I requested the checkuser. Tsyko is a sockpuppet used by Iantresman to evade his ban and carry on his grudge against ScienceApologist in an ArbCom case. The sockpuppetry was confirmed by Raul654 via checkuser. Any impression that Iantresman "has done nothing wrong" is an incorrect one. MastCell Talk 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but any good directions would be much appreciated. To sum up my concerns:
ANYWAYS, if you've read through that description you can see where I'm coming from. In terms of community building, Ultramarine is not (I keep using this term) "inviting". What do I do? Thanks again. Uwmad ( talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point regarding the sockpuppetry. I'm afraid I won't be able to file a report until much later this evening, though... Kafka Liz ( talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Xiutwel's warning here, see this. Raul654 ( talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made a start over my lunch break. So far the "Background" section as been rewritten, and appropriately referenced. The references took some time to locate, which is why the article was {{ inuse}} for an hour. The rest of the article is going to be much trickier. It needs to be rebalanced towards to majority viewpoint (too much conspiracy stuff at present), and there are some structural changes that need to be made to make it more readable (tiny sections followed by huge sections at present) but the hardest thing will be locating sources. But if in doubt, unreferenced material may have to be removed. I expect this will take a few days to clean up, but perhaps some collaborative effort will speed this up somewhat! :) Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
attempt [14], reverted by me [15]. Does this need oversight? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice it's an open Tor proxy, so it's probably the sockmaster going after Dana -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on that one. I thought his editing pattern was a little... unusual. Best, Gwernol 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Xp54321 ( talk) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Poison12346 is not another sockpuppet account.Like I said I'm past that. Xp54321 ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
Can you please tell me why you removed the external links on the Code 128 and Code 39 pages? I have reviewed the LinkSpam section of WP:EL and I can not see a reason why any of the sites in the external link could be seen as promoting their website.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingguy ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We have some problems with archiving at the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Can you help us?-- Filll ( talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do not know why it stopped working and why it started working again. Weird.-- Filll ( talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Supergreenred ( talk · contribs) is asking for an unblock. Since Rafaelsfingers was unblocked with the agreement that he would only use one account, either Supergreenred is telling the truth in not being a sock, or Rafaelsfingers needs to be re-blocked. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to this edit to the archive of this discussion seems to have gone unnoticed. I would like to raise probation again, since the editor had been warned about being put on probation before. Thanks, -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'd like your opinion on my recent edits and behavior. I'd also appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the whole 100MB vs. 500MB thing.It would be much appreciated.(There is a rfc but I'm trying to get as many editors as possible.It has also been agreed if there is no response 100MB will be used as the new update interval.Of course if the speed at which space is added changes the interval will be adjusted per consensus.) Xp54321 ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
My final diff is here [17]. If you look at the talk page, you will see that I have highlighted some issues. I am still unhappy with the "Media coverage" section but I think the major problems with the article are resolved in this edition. I pessimistically await vandalism or OR, or other policy-violating material, but I felt it was sufficient for now to remove the tags at the top. Please review and check that it is good enough compared to the incarnation you were very concerned about. (the history is quite a fun read!) Fritzpoll ( talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you just blocked that guy, even as I was trying to give a good-faith answer of what I thought was a good-faith question about admin probation. Yet some editors accuse me of not following the WP:AGF guideline. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've used your comment [19] at the arbcomm page. Thought I ought to warn you William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably just spouting off, but I reported him [20] just in case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I put an archive template on this because it looks like you've resolved it. I'm just double-checking with you. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 02:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman
Thanks for taking action on
this sock case. Now that the block on user CFW is lifted could you please open this report for editing? I want to add additional supporting evidences to it, e.g.,
this concern.
Duty2love (
talk)
16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
While I have no strong feelings about "articleness" for this case, I believe your protection was out of process and not done according to any accepted policy or norms. There was nothing close to an edit war or three reverts. Therefore I am unprotecting the article, simply because the description you gave wasn't accurate. This does not preclude protecting it later for other reasons including a real edit war. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I've reached over 500 edits and am now using Twinkle and Friendly to great sucess. Just reached 600 edits.:D Xp54321 ( talk) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, do you remember our long lost friend User:Anacapa? Well he's back ban evading and he's using another IP User:128.111.95.38. This IP is a University of Sanata Barbara California IP, just like the majority of his other sock IPs, he's been trolling talk:feminism - pushing the same sources ('Spreading Misandry' by Nathanson and Young) and using the same uncivil rhetoric about the users who edit Feminism "you will find that clear logic is totally forbidden on this page and all others which 'gender'-as-female 'ginning' girls and girl-guys control." 'Gender-ginning' is as you will see from my old report page one of Anacapa's favorite terms. He's also made edits to Covert incest and Reproductive endocrinology and infertility [22] - in both cases these have been reverted. I've contacted the good faith user who replied to Anacapa on Talk:Feminism and I'll like your advice on whether or not that convo should be removed - I assume it should be as per WP:BAN-- Cailil talk 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed the fact that he also used IP 128.111.95.171 to comment to Talk:feminism. This IP is one that he has previously used and which was previously blocked as an Anacapa sock. The areas of interest are a match here too: Talk:Feminism, Shunning, Talk:Shunning, Mennonite and Talk:Antifeminism. And from a quick look at the history of Shunning it seems he's been using IP 128.111.97.148 too. These IPs have made new edits to these pages since May 2 2008 - I've reverted his main-space edits but I've left the talk-space comments for the moment-- Cailil talk 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh in case there was any doubt that he's back IP 128.111.95.110 (yet another Univeristy of Santa Barbara California IP - previously blocked as an Anacapa sock) makes reference to how great the banned user (ref to Anacapa) was at Talk:shunning here - this was back on March 3rd 2008-- Cailil talk 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) No reply from Alison would you mind dropping her a word on the matter? My wording might be confusing-- Cailil talk 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are then would you please check into this before it gets way out of hand? [23] and [24]. I don't edit this article but I pop in and watch to see how things are going, which at this time the heat is rising unfortunatly. I don't know enough about chiropractor's to join in and I am trying to understand chiropractor more myself for personal reasons, which is why I watch it. I thought maybe you would be able to slow things down and restore WP:Civil, which I understand is hard to do on this page. I hope I am bringing this to the right editor, if not, my apologies. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection was probably a decent thing to do, but going to arbitration is not procedure. Lock it, tell them to talk it out, unlock it, repeat rinse lather. :) Let the wiki process work a bit first, keep an eye on it, but don't go to arbcom that's supposed to be a last resort. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Subject: Mr. Xp54321's progress since last report. Date:5/9/08 6:05 PM PST Progress:
Signed: Xp54321 ( talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You helped with the COI on the Rocketboom page a while back. The owner of the site recently created an account and is clearly unhappy with Wikipedia as a whole. Please have a peek at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Rocketboom and the affected pages. Thanks! - Cleanr ( talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I got your message. I am not sure what to do. I have reported this Troll personally to Jimmy Wales and he said that he would have some experts look into it.
I never heard back but my perosanl page has been deleted and the troll Cleanr has been rediting the Rocketboom page.
Cleanr is annomonus and has made all negitive edits that I dont think are valid.
Will you please try to justify Cleanr for me? No one has been able to.
Also will you please try to explain why my edits are not valid? No one has been able to.
Thanks, just trying to get some help because right now, its just me and Cleanr.
I only respond to his negitive deletes and alterations.
Thanks for you help, its very frusterating because as you can imagine, its very likely that there would be a personal that would try to edit this article negitively, so why wont anyone look further into Cleanrs edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For that amazing tool I use every day, the Wikipedia Cite tool, I hereby award you the Brilliant Idea Barnstar. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
Realised I still hadn't come to thank you for making my editing so much easier with the invention of this tool. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Further stuff from Anacapa [28]. Anything we can do?-- Cailil talk 10:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS we probably should delete or semi-protect User:Cailil/Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles - I'll take your advice on which to do. But in light of the fact that Anacapa is back we may need it again-- Cailil talk 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the list of current IPs being used:
This is the one you just blocked
In this collapsed box are the ones from the same range but have been disused for months
Extended content
|
---|
|
Should we drop the IT dept. of UCSB (where these all originate) a line about abuse of their IPs?-- Cailil talk 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
I'd like to bring to your notice, the edits of User:Raasukutty in the article Devadasi. I think he is a sock of User:mudaliar. Please see [29]. Can you please take care of the situation?
MarkPC ( talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised, but nothing of note seems to be happening at this article at the moment. The content disputes were minor and easily remedied on the talk page, and there is nothing but the occasional little bit of vandalism - just thought I'd let you know so that you didn't think I'd forgotten! Thinking of trying to get this up to GA soon - what do you think of it? Fritzpoll ( talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled on the discussions of the term 'supercar' from the nissan gtr page and the resulting ban of user CompScientist. it seems that every request attempt to be unblocked is met with the same basic reason, regardless of the quality (if you will) of his stated request. one of the central beauties of wikipedia is that it's open to virtually everyone, preventing small groups and individuals from controlling public information. i make no judgments on his or any of his edit-warring-enemies in regards to their behavior, and am not interested in taking personal sides. Neither am i suggesting any particular action to be done. rather, i ask that you re-review the situation. the remarks left by admins seem a bit redundant, as if i could predict what the next denial will say. the variables are not important, just the idea of any heated discussions in the future to be easily resolved by perma-bans. thanks. Aceholiday ( talk) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you still watching over this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I now realize I mixed up Homeopathy and Chiropractic (similar deal there). See Eubulides ( talk · contribs) talk page; I haven't followed the article, but it appears he's getting beaten up over there, and I know him to be a courteous, responsible, accurate and ethical editor. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
CorticoSpinal ( talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, has anyone ever been the subject of two concurrent WP:RFArbs at the same time? I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just worry that Cla68 already has his hands full dealing with what is already (most likely) a contentious case without having to be involved in a second one at the same time. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan, I really don't think this remark [30] is helpful. Yes, there was the usual Slim/Crum/Jay team. But there were lots of other good and constructive editors who opposed, and lumping them wholesale into a "clique" isn't appropriate. FWIW my view is that this whole mess has been blown way out of proportion. Maybe there should be some general admonishments (toward both sides) but there has been too many rancorous comments and calls for extreme action. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of semi-protecting this article? Not surprisingly it is getting a lot of drive-by vandalism, and I think semi-protection would stop a lot of it. Thanks Doug Weller ( talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. I noticed that you created the request for checkuser for User:Xp54321. This user seems abusing multiple accounts again. You might be interested that they created an RFA and voted to support themselves with User:Sman.grimtuesday and User:71.182.108.14. I am not familiar with submitting requests for checkuser, so I am asking you to take a look at this and submit it if you believe that this is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. User:Metros has started the sockpuppetry page. Cunard ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we are thinking along similar lines there. You may wish to review Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 5 and Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 6. I managed to propose and enforce a set of fixed criteria, the article survived AfD, and User:BrownHairedGirl closed with a rename which seems to have enforced relative peace and stability on the article since, as far as I am aware. This is an analogy and not a strict comparison, but a lot of the group dynamics are comparable. Question; if we were to centralize debate on renaming all the "terrorism" articles, where would be the best place to centralize it? -- John ( talk) 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All set. Help me think up a cool shortcut? WP:TERROR, WP:TERRORISM, and WP:TERRORIST are all taken. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that you are fairly policy-oriented, and wanted to make sure that you noticed my question here. Kww ( talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, you've been mentioned at Talk:Keith_Henson#Category:American_criminals. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 05:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI he returned to the Allegations article and reverted three times before the page was locked - I think he's just spat on your good faith in unblocking him. John Smith's ( talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman - my RfA closed today, successfully. I wanted to thank you for your support, both directly and in the discussions within the RfA, and also for the coaching. I know we didn't do a huge amount together, but what we did do exposed me to several different elements of Wikipedia that I wasn't aware of, and ultimately helped me to focus on what I enjoy doing. Hopefully I will find the admin tools useful in this regard! Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please confirm if you're withdrawing your proposed remedy 1, so it may be removed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I know you've been fairly convinced by the evidence of sock and/or meatpuppetry in the Giovanni33 ArbCom case, but partly because of that and partly because you have some experience evaluating sockpuppetry in general (and these accounts in particular) I just wanted to ask if you might take some time to have a look at a new section of evidence I added. Thanks!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I have a question for you regarding my arbcom case. I've asked it before on the case pages but you may have missed it. This is in regards to your statement that while before you thought I was behind the puppets, you changed your mind to block me citing that "several admins" wrote to you and that this caused significant doubt on your part. I understand if the admins and the evidence that they may have presented are private in nature, and I do not know if they have written directly to arbcom nor not. However, if you have evidence which caused you to have significant doubt over the accusations I currently face in arbcom, it certainly is relevant and I would like to make sure that this evidence is considered by the committee. Therefore, can you relay this information to them, in one form or another (e-mail or by posting it to evidence page?) Thanks. Giovanni33 ( talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was browsing through something else (the "Wikipedia effect", you know!) and happened across User:Zoporific and User:Snocrates, who apparently used to share a room and computer, and went through a sock-abuse discussion. I'm unclear whether the final opinion was that they were socks or genuinely separate, but my only real concern is that the tag on User:Zoporific is inaccurate as he's not blocked. If it's intended that he be blocked then someone should do that, otherwise is there some more accurate tag I should change it to? Many thanks! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Je, you followed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot more closely than I did. My first encounter with Sadi Carnot ( talk · contribs) was over the Extra-Long Article Committee, and there has been some fairly persistent perseveration over at WP:SIZE. Can you peek in at this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but inner warning lights are still saying something is amiss here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you but User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing again. Recently he was formally topic-banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing about conspiracy theories [32]. However that is neither the focus nor extent of his soapboxing. If you remember in November 2007 I raised concerns about this same behaviour on Talk:Feminism and left you a note here (you can see the old ANI thread here).
I also raised the subsequent problems with Haemo - who becuase they were involved in an article on the list preferred to recuse from dealing with it [33].
Most recently Caesarjbsquitti multi-posted a peice about sexism against men in to Sexism, Violence against women and Domestic violence. Originally there were OR problems on his post to the 'Sexism' article [34] but he subsequently ironed that out reverting my removal of his OR and synthestis (but marked his revert as "minor" [35]). He also added the same text to the 'Domestic Violence' article (also marking the addition of a new section as "minor" [36]) and then to the 'Violence against women' article [37].
I raised concerns about how the material was then added to a new criticism section at Talk:Violence_against_women and how it violated WP:NOR and WP:COAT (detailed here). This his response [38].
Is this soapboxing further tendentious behaviour in light of the fact that this user has been blocked, topic banned and previously warned for such behaviour and if so what remedy would be appropriate?-- Cailil talk 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also as I raised it with Haemo - there may be an issue with the userpage User:Caesarjbsquitti - soapbox on his theories about half-truths and borders on being an ad for his self-published book-- Cailil talk 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS see this post to Talk:Domestic violence. Also a quick FYI - this user was warned about this same behaviour in August 2006 [39]-- Cailil talk 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What gives you the authority to remove other people's comments from user Talk pages? -- Jagz ( talk) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, If you've got a moment, could you look at Atropa belladonna and its talkpage? Some attention by an uninvolved editor might help. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of an update for Firefox 3.0? The Add-on dialog for the new version is rejecting the XPI as incompatible. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah this would be awesome. I have gotten so used to this tool that if it's not compatible I think I'll have to go back to the old Firefox. :) Cirt ( talk) 06:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. Could you contribute any thoughts over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (5th nomination)? I see you have blocked the *.243 IP as a Davkal sock. If you know his behavioral pattern, that might justify blocking *.109 as well. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me! 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the sockpuppetry case, although sadly it won't reverse the damage it has done. The retired user burnt his bridges when he resulted to abuse. Thanks anway! = ) -- Cameron * 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
First, for circumventing a block - you have my word that I will not do this again. I've read your profile page, checked your edits, and you seem to me someone who is a tribute to Wikipedia, and for that, I apologize for my untoward behavior, and any imposition I've put on you. Please be assured that I have never harmed any living thing in my life, and have no intention to. There is no threat, explicit or implied, in anything I've said to AnotherSolipsist. I was simply jerking his chain, because an independent watchdog group watches his edits, and I think he's a danger to the credibililty of Wikipedia. If you look at his edits on such things as Pedophilia you will see he is a very clever POV artist, and the source of a lot of misinformation. However, none of this really matters anymore, as I'm so disgusted with this project that I've 4 years of time and effort into, that I want nothing to do with it anymore. I wish you the best of luck, however, in making Wikipedia better with your obvious respect for the principles that made this website great at one time. I ask you one favor, if you feel inclined to do this for me. Please just leave my user page alone now. I get the point. Just leave Googie Man be, and I'll move on. Best, the former editor Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[40] forestPIG 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For reversing the decision on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii I had almost lost faith when nothing was getting done about this. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
Barryob courteously notified me that my decision was reversed. Let me just explain what happened on my end. I looked at the list of suspected sockpuppets at the top of the page, then I skipped to the checkuser results, and I saw that Wikipiere was not Fonez4mii, so that ruled out the possibility of multiple accounts stacking consensus, and I didn't see a problem with the anonymous edits. Jehochman's diff number 7 on the SSP [43] showed that User:Fone4My was a disruptive sockpuppet of Fonez4mii. I had been unaware of that, and had I known, I would not have closed the sockpuppet case the way I did. I hope those of you who needed to work overtime because of my lack of awareness will forgive me for it. With the volume of workload I handle at SSP, a mistake of this type is almost impossible to prevent, so I can only apologize and try to be more careful in the future. Yechiel ( Shalom) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jehcohman,
Thank you for your help on improving the Big Valley Fishing vessel article.
-- Grandscribe ( talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser just had said the case didn't need looking into, heh... Thatcher suggested it be listed as a normal sockpuppetry case, but that would be an exercise in futility because we definitely know those are sockpuppets, it's painfully obvious. The point was that the guy looked like he was going to be really persistent at first, so I wanted to explore whether a rangeblock would be feasible. But he went away, so it's a moot point now.
So... I should have just left a comment to that effect then? I'm just trying to understand what the right process is if the checkuser says, "Take it elsewhere," and I'm like, "Enh, nevermind." :) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have come across a sockpuppet of User:Atari400.
This edit [44] lead me to my accusation, along with the fact that many of this IPs edits seem to be similar to those of Atari's. The IP is hesitant to Afghanistan being considered South Asian [45]. Atari has made similar pages many, many times. Their edits also coincide with Atari's interests as per his userboxes [46]. They both have edited regarding slave trade, Middle Eastern military, and various Middle Eastern and Central Asia articles. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
[47] 71.107.70.47 is the same as 71.107.84.105. 71.107.84.105 changed it to retire too. He did not retire. He was banned for being a sockpuppet. Atari400 was caught with a sock puppet before on Template:Countries of the Indosphere, which is now deleted. Can something be done with Atari and his socks? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Two points, and I hope you don't take offense at these:
That said, thanks for your RFCU work. Regards, Antelan talk 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Another occurrence Antelan talk 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jehochman,
Sorry about the last upset about editing the Lyme page. I made the mistake of deleting a paragraph which made a sweeping statement that was not backed up by a reference (that 9 of 19 web sites were..). I should have modified it rather than deleted it.
I added in several carefully and moderately worded worded statements about the 'other side' in the Lyme debate (supporting the idea that chronic Lyme infection might actually exist, and pointing out that the infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) came in for some pretty heavy criticism for excluding academic opinion from its panels... only to find them systematically blocked out within minutes by someone who reverted them to the original form. The site seems to have been hijacked by some partisan, who refuses to let the opposite side state their view in any objective way. It is unfortunately just true to the IDSA way of doing things (sigh).
Is there any way we can have some moderator on this, someone not from either camp who makes the decision? I am an academic biologist (at Rutgers University) and I can I am sure find such a person. The page is just not 'working' at present. It has become a propaganda tool for one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundinkualalumpur ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
When the redlinked conspiracy theorists are ready to settle in and conform to Wiki policies and guidelines, they may find I'll be sympathetic to working in due weight discussion of chronic Lyme, providing they can provide reliable peer-reviewed sources and will accept due weight for the non-mainstream theories. The last time I checked, my doctors (Jones, Fallon and Phillips) certainly aren't in the "Steere camp", but we're not going to make any progress on the article as long as it's being used for advocacy purposes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, sir, even I have doubts about my RFA... God Bless and tanks for the comments... Blake Gripling ( talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
See you around the wiki!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You reopened a sock puppet investigation, and then took some measures against User:Fonez4mii, here, but since then, new evidence has come to light here, though you need to read down the page a bit, as the two cases are intertwined a little. As a result of this, I have reviewed the evidence on request by other users, and reached a decision to indefinitely block User:Fone4My with the reasons given in User talk:Fone4My#Sockpuppetry (second section). Since you had taken previous action, I wanted to let you know of this, as the two situations follow on from one another, though are different. DDStretch (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope you're good... you may recall that shortly before (another) one of my indef. blocks last year, we began a conversation about entering into a dialog about my editing and stuff like that - I came to you then because I've noticed you around the place, and always found your posts thoughtful and helpful (even when I disagree with them) - and it's in the same spirit that I thought I'd point this page out to you, and ask for your input / advice. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman Talk 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Baidu-serp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just dropping a line. Durova's opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cailil-- Cailil talk 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, it's easy to get along with people when there's mutual respect. Do you have any insight on how to deal with the opposite situation? Or are other people just duffers ;) ? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may want to look at this checkuser case, given that you blocked and then unblocked Giovanni for puppeting. Note that Ratatoui has been confirmed as Supergreenred. John Smith's ( talk) 19:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Your link on your user page to the HGTTG wikiquote page is broken due to a typo. I humbly suggest replacing the existing code with [[q:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]] -- Kendrick7 talk 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning, though you may want to rectify the entry. John Smith's ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one trying to make a big deal out of this. This is one line of history in a very long list. -- Kendrick7 talk 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair point. If he wants to play around with the page I won't waste any more time worrying about it. John Smith's ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Your popular little citation tool isn't compatible with Firefox 3. Any chance of an update? The grapevine is mumbling with requests. Best, Durova Charge! 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
[48] Goodness knows what I did there... Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while this would be a great redirect to Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, WP:MOBY is already a different page. Neıl 龱 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. The parade of obviously linked sock/meatpuppet agenda accounts at Lyme disease continues to grow in size and disruptiveness. Latest entrant is Freyfaxi ( talk · contribs), just blocked for 31 hours for disruption by Gwen Gale. I'm wondering if you feel uninvolved enough to oversee this rapidly degenerating situation in an administrative capacity. It's your call; if you feel too involved to use the tools, I'll post another request for administrative attention at WP:AN/I, but I'm rapidly tiring of the status quo. MastCell Talk 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (they'll be back :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably because it came from the wheel war debate, but I think "Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to antagonize other administrators." should say "Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to antagonize other editors and administrators." Any antagonistic sysop action is unhelpful. It's difficult to judge this though. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
While the article might need a bit of cleanup and expansion, I don't get a sense that Elonka was violating COI; she was just trying to clean up the article. Sceptre ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I respectfully ask you to please not take anymore clerical or administrative actions on the RfC as you did here? Your involvement has been questioned so it would be much better if you just asked an uninvovled admin to handle these types of things. Having you take such actions will simply cause more drama. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep it on the talk page and notify each person you complain about. It is wrong to criticize people and not give them opportunity and space to respond. I think that drawing so many subjects together will make even more a mess, but that is your decision. Jehochman Talk 11:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi. Putting this here because I am very much unsure about where to go since the case is already closed.
My run in with IrishLass does not give me the impression that she and KellyAna is the same person. Although it is clear, from edits such as this [1] that they do know each other of wiki.
The RFCU makes the claim that the two never talk to each other, but this is not quite true; This is not quite true, they are policing each others talk pages and inform when alterations is made; [2] and [3].
The lack of overlap between editing time is striking, but is consistent with one editor having internet acces at home while the other edits from work.
My view is that WP:AGF leads us to assume meatpuppetry and not sockpuppetry. This is important because it implies that Irishlass could be acting in good faith. Taemyr ( talk) 10:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, As u have correctly identified, multiple throw away sock puppets are messing around in articles Mudaliar Sengunthar Devadasi and Gatti_Mudalis. If possible can you please semi protect all the above articles so that it is easier for genuine editors to work. Saedirof ( talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I went to the page you recommended re disputes and have added my information to Delicious Carbuncle's request. [ [4]]
I'm sorry you thought what I was saying was just an accusation. You are incorrect in saying it is unsubstantiated as its well supported by evidence, self admitted by the people in question, see Delicious Carbuncle's ( talk)talk page.
I would have just appreciated your help without assuming I have any other agenda than to stop someone stalking me. That's all I can say. You cannot know what I have been through at the hands of the before mentioned people. But it is irrevelant I guess - except that it has now spilled onto wikipedia and a totally unrelated editor is being accused of being me in rather nasty circumstances.
Restawhile ( talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)restawhile
[5] I know it can be hard, seeing as how I'm so unpopular. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I don't quite agree with your assessment of this sockpuppet case. I find that the creation date of the users match too well with Dana creating an account to edit his own article and then creating new accounts whenever the someone asks if he is Dana. Notice how the users just stop editing when they are being asked if they are Dana, and never defend themselves, and then keep editing with the same arguments.
I know that you are a way more experienced editor than me, and that you are experienced with sock cases, but I find this case to be hurried too much. Is there some procedure to get a checkuser done by asking to other admin or to get the case reviewed by a different admin? I don't want to "admin-shop", but I don't really feel confortable with your handling of the case, and I would like another admin with checkuser privileges to look at it and confirm that it's necessary to make a checkuser.
It just looks to me like an evident case, even if I couldn't find any actual smoking gun to point it. There is also more circumstancial evidence, like Dana and those users having all of them two spaces after every end of sentence on all comments, this being something that only happens to a percentage of users of wikipedia, and that I forgot to include on the case.
I thought of sending you a private email, but since you always say that you want to talk things on the open, I'm posting here. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, Are you interested in popping by for a chat with the NTWW? All you need is a working headset, a glass of water (trust me, all the talking gets tiring :) and skype on your computer (it's free). We'd love to have a knowledgeable chap such as yourself on ;) Regards, Anthøny 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I wouldnt mind talking to Jehochman myself although I am not on Skype right now. I was earlier however.-- Filll ( talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This was fairly painless! :-) BTW, do you know if the arbitrators watch the talk page. I posted this, but I can't remember whether talk pages and main pages are mixed up together in watchlists or whether they show up separately. I was thinking of asking for advice somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. I bring something related to violation on our user naming policy and possible SSP. You're very strict to inappropriate wording or comment by editors, so I think you can clear this up. A new user named Chibalnom ( talk · contribs) nominates Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies
At first the article looks quite mess without reliable citations, but I know the school is a notable school for gifted students in South Korea. However, his name concerns me more that the article, because it refers to "son of bitch" in Korean and his user page also is written with "Chibal!". He seems to be very knowledgeable of all the procedure for AFD on contrary to his registered date. Not to mention, the name is a blatant violation on the user name policy but I think he is likely a sock of this non-Korean editor. [8] Since the romanization is not following the Revised Romanization, generally used method to transcribe Korean language into English here, I guess he pretends to be Korean. In addition, his eagerness toward Korean academic institutions and DAB pages, the two people could be the same person. Please look into this case, Thanks. -- Appletrees ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: [9]. Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt ( talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{ cite web}} primarily? Cirt ( talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt ( talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.
For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings ( talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.
I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.
As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's ( talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you closed the SSP recommending WP:DE, which I am not debating. But if the community follows your recommendation it leads to ANI, which you yourself called "A place that fuels drama". Is it no advisable that parties conserned should pursue their conserns at WP:RFC/U. Igor Berger ( talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re [10] and the rest: thanks. It will help a lot; indeed it already has William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. If hat's the crucial point leading to an indefblock of Giovanni33, I must say that leaving out the crucial fact that the "idiosyncratic POV" is US=massive terrorist ringleader, the "narrow set of articles"=those articles which imply the US is a massive terrorist ringleader and the "narrow geographical area is San Francisco!! does strengthen your argument a bit. Put it in, and your argument fails, I'm afraid. Not that I am particularly upset if Giovanni has gone, but if you think that every IP/ account in future (or in the past!) editing with that POV from Northern California is a sockpuppet of G33, we are going to see a hell of a lot of false positives. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Three administrators have endorsed the block. You are the lone opposition. See below, as well as the SSP report talk page and the unblock denial on the user's talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as I like Giovanni, I would agree that he is using sockpuppets. For example, with only about 20 edits to his name, Supergreenred removes John Smiths comments from his talk page here, something which Giovanni habitually does. In the next edit John Smith notes the obvious: [11]. John Smith was Gio's opponent in the arbcom case and they have a long history. Another possibility: Gio's opponents are setting him up by creating socks that look like him. Entirely possible, and very easy to do, so there is some ambiguity. ^^James^^ ( talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Bearian ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This Barnstar is given for quick and valiant action against a vandal who has harassed many a fine editor. Kudos! Bearian ( talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Wooo! I don't have on of these yet. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ultramarine makes some interesting points on Rafael's talk page. Wanted to let you know in case you missed them. John Smith's ( talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If he is to be considered for unblocking, surely he needs to admit to his sockpuppetry and disclose all accounts/IPs/etc that he has been using. Though, as I mention above, Ultramarine feels that there is new evidence that points to Giovanni being the puppeteer, rather than Rafael (which would make Rafael a sock). John Smith's ( talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask your advice, because I think you're familiar with procedures related to sockpuppets. I'm inclined to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from User:Iantresman's userpage. The suspected sockpuppet reports ( first , second) didn't find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. The template was placed on the user page on April 10, around the time of filing the second suspected sockpuppet report, by ScienceApologist. I proposed on Iantresman's talk page removing the sockpuppet template and no one has objected. Would I be violating any policy or usual procedure if I were to delete the template? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Tsyko ( talk · contribs) was a obvious sleeper sock who appeared at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist with a grudge against ScienceApologist. I made an on-wiki request at the RfArb workshop to checkuser the account against Iantresman, since it seemed pretty obvious, but the request languished. Ultimately I asked Raul654 to look at it, since socks of banned users who disrupt ArbCom cases are A Bad Thing. Raul654 confirmed that Iantresman==Tsyko (though proxying for a banned user didn't stop Martinphi from reinserting Ian's "evidence", but that's another story).
Anyhow, I requested the checkuser. Tsyko is a sockpuppet used by Iantresman to evade his ban and carry on his grudge against ScienceApologist in an ArbCom case. The sockpuppetry was confirmed by Raul654 via checkuser. Any impression that Iantresman "has done nothing wrong" is an incorrect one. MastCell Talk 03:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but any good directions would be much appreciated. To sum up my concerns:
ANYWAYS, if you've read through that description you can see where I'm coming from. In terms of community building, Ultramarine is not (I keep using this term) "inviting". What do I do? Thanks again. Uwmad ( talk) 04:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point regarding the sockpuppetry. I'm afraid I won't be able to file a report until much later this evening, though... Kafka Liz ( talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Xiutwel's warning here, see this. Raul654 ( talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have made a start over my lunch break. So far the "Background" section as been rewritten, and appropriately referenced. The references took some time to locate, which is why the article was {{ inuse}} for an hour. The rest of the article is going to be much trickier. It needs to be rebalanced towards to majority viewpoint (too much conspiracy stuff at present), and there are some structural changes that need to be made to make it more readable (tiny sections followed by huge sections at present) but the hardest thing will be locating sources. But if in doubt, unreferenced material may have to be removed. I expect this will take a few days to clean up, but perhaps some collaborative effort will speed this up somewhat! :) Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
attempt [14], reverted by me [15]. Does this need oversight? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice it's an open Tor proxy, so it's probably the sockmaster going after Dana -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on that one. I thought his editing pattern was a little... unusual. Best, Gwernol 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Xp54321 ( talk) 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Poison12346 is not another sockpuppet account.Like I said I'm past that. Xp54321 ( talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
Can you please tell me why you removed the external links on the Code 128 and Code 39 pages? I have reviewed the LinkSpam section of WP:EL and I can not see a reason why any of the sites in the external link could be seen as promoting their website.
Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingguy ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We have some problems with archiving at the talk page of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Can you help us?-- Filll ( talk) 14:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly do not know why it stopped working and why it started working again. Weird.-- Filll ( talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Supergreenred ( talk · contribs) is asking for an unblock. Since Rafaelsfingers was unblocked with the agreement that he would only use one account, either Supergreenred is telling the truth in not being a sock, or Rafaelsfingers needs to be re-blocked. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to this edit to the archive of this discussion seems to have gone unnoticed. I would like to raise probation again, since the editor had been warned about being put on probation before. Thanks, -- Domer48 ( talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'd like your opinion on my recent edits and behavior. I'd also appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the whole 100MB vs. 500MB thing.It would be much appreciated.(There is a rfc but I'm trying to get as many editors as possible.It has also been agreed if there is no response 100MB will be used as the new update interval.Of course if the speed at which space is added changes the interval will be adjusted per consensus.) Xp54321 ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
My final diff is here [17]. If you look at the talk page, you will see that I have highlighted some issues. I am still unhappy with the "Media coverage" section but I think the major problems with the article are resolved in this edition. I pessimistically await vandalism or OR, or other policy-violating material, but I felt it was sufficient for now to remove the tags at the top. Please review and check that it is good enough compared to the incarnation you were very concerned about. (the history is quite a fun read!) Fritzpoll ( talk) 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you just blocked that guy, even as I was trying to give a good-faith answer of what I thought was a good-faith question about admin probation. Yet some editors accuse me of not following the WP:AGF guideline. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've used your comment [19] at the arbcomm page. Thought I ought to warn you William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably just spouting off, but I reported him [20] just in case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I put an archive template on this because it looks like you've resolved it. I'm just double-checking with you. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 02:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman
Thanks for taking action on
this sock case. Now that the block on user CFW is lifted could you please open this report for editing? I want to add additional supporting evidences to it, e.g.,
this concern.
Duty2love (
talk)
16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
While I have no strong feelings about "articleness" for this case, I believe your protection was out of process and not done according to any accepted policy or norms. There was nothing close to an edit war or three reverts. Therefore I am unprotecting the article, simply because the description you gave wasn't accurate. This does not preclude protecting it later for other reasons including a real edit war. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I've reached over 500 edits and am now using Twinkle and Friendly to great sucess. Just reached 600 edits.:D Xp54321 ( talk) 23:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, do you remember our long lost friend User:Anacapa? Well he's back ban evading and he's using another IP User:128.111.95.38. This IP is a University of Sanata Barbara California IP, just like the majority of his other sock IPs, he's been trolling talk:feminism - pushing the same sources ('Spreading Misandry' by Nathanson and Young) and using the same uncivil rhetoric about the users who edit Feminism "you will find that clear logic is totally forbidden on this page and all others which 'gender'-as-female 'ginning' girls and girl-guys control." 'Gender-ginning' is as you will see from my old report page one of Anacapa's favorite terms. He's also made edits to Covert incest and Reproductive endocrinology and infertility [22] - in both cases these have been reverted. I've contacted the good faith user who replied to Anacapa on Talk:Feminism and I'll like your advice on whether or not that convo should be removed - I assume it should be as per WP:BAN-- Cailil talk 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I missed the fact that he also used IP 128.111.95.171 to comment to Talk:feminism. This IP is one that he has previously used and which was previously blocked as an Anacapa sock. The areas of interest are a match here too: Talk:Feminism, Shunning, Talk:Shunning, Mennonite and Talk:Antifeminism. And from a quick look at the history of Shunning it seems he's been using IP 128.111.97.148 too. These IPs have made new edits to these pages since May 2 2008 - I've reverted his main-space edits but I've left the talk-space comments for the moment-- Cailil talk 12:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh in case there was any doubt that he's back IP 128.111.95.110 (yet another Univeristy of Santa Barbara California IP - previously blocked as an Anacapa sock) makes reference to how great the banned user (ref to Anacapa) was at Talk:shunning here - this was back on March 3rd 2008-- Cailil talk 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) No reply from Alison would you mind dropping her a word on the matter? My wording might be confusing-- Cailil talk 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are then would you please check into this before it gets way out of hand? [23] and [24]. I don't edit this article but I pop in and watch to see how things are going, which at this time the heat is rising unfortunatly. I don't know enough about chiropractor's to join in and I am trying to understand chiropractor more myself for personal reasons, which is why I watch it. I thought maybe you would be able to slow things down and restore WP:Civil, which I understand is hard to do on this page. I hope I am bringing this to the right editor, if not, my apologies. -- CrohnieGal Talk 11:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection was probably a decent thing to do, but going to arbitration is not procedure. Lock it, tell them to talk it out, unlock it, repeat rinse lather. :) Let the wiki process work a bit first, keep an eye on it, but don't go to arbcom that's supposed to be a last resort. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Subject: Mr. Xp54321's progress since last report. Date:5/9/08 6:05 PM PST Progress:
Signed: Xp54321 ( talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You helped with the COI on the Rocketboom page a while back. The owner of the site recently created an account and is clearly unhappy with Wikipedia as a whole. Please have a peek at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Rocketboom and the affected pages. Thanks! - Cleanr ( talk) 07:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi I got your message. I am not sure what to do. I have reported this Troll personally to Jimmy Wales and he said that he would have some experts look into it.
I never heard back but my perosanl page has been deleted and the troll Cleanr has been rediting the Rocketboom page.
Cleanr is annomonus and has made all negitive edits that I dont think are valid.
Will you please try to justify Cleanr for me? No one has been able to.
Also will you please try to explain why my edits are not valid? No one has been able to.
Thanks, just trying to get some help because right now, its just me and Cleanr.
I only respond to his negitive deletes and alterations.
Thanks for you help, its very frusterating because as you can imagine, its very likely that there would be a personal that would try to edit this article negitively, so why wont anyone look further into Cleanrs edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For that amazing tool I use every day, the Wikipedia Cite tool, I hereby award you the Brilliant Idea Barnstar. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
Realised I still hadn't come to thank you for making my editing so much easier with the invention of this tool. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Further stuff from Anacapa [28]. Anything we can do?-- Cailil talk 10:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS we probably should delete or semi-protect User:Cailil/Complex vandalism on feminism and gender studies related articles - I'll take your advice on which to do. But in light of the fact that Anacapa is back we may need it again-- Cailil talk 11:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the list of current IPs being used:
This is the one you just blocked
In this collapsed box are the ones from the same range but have been disused for months
Extended content
|
---|
|
Should we drop the IT dept. of UCSB (where these all originate) a line about abuse of their IPs?-- Cailil talk 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman,
I'd like to bring to your notice, the edits of User:Raasukutty in the article Devadasi. I think he is a sock of User:mudaliar. Please see [29]. Can you please take care of the situation?
MarkPC ( talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised, but nothing of note seems to be happening at this article at the moment. The content disputes were minor and easily remedied on the talk page, and there is nothing but the occasional little bit of vandalism - just thought I'd let you know so that you didn't think I'd forgotten! Thinking of trying to get this up to GA soon - what do you think of it? Fritzpoll ( talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled on the discussions of the term 'supercar' from the nissan gtr page and the resulting ban of user CompScientist. it seems that every request attempt to be unblocked is met with the same basic reason, regardless of the quality (if you will) of his stated request. one of the central beauties of wikipedia is that it's open to virtually everyone, preventing small groups and individuals from controlling public information. i make no judgments on his or any of his edit-warring-enemies in regards to their behavior, and am not interested in taking personal sides. Neither am i suggesting any particular action to be done. rather, i ask that you re-review the situation. the remarks left by admins seem a bit redundant, as if i could predict what the next denial will say. the variables are not important, just the idea of any heated discussions in the future to be easily resolved by perma-bans. thanks. Aceholiday ( talk) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you still watching over this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I now realize I mixed up Homeopathy and Chiropractic (similar deal there). See Eubulides ( talk · contribs) talk page; I haven't followed the article, but it appears he's getting beaten up over there, and I know him to be a courteous, responsible, accurate and ethical editor. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
CorticoSpinal ( talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, has anyone ever been the subject of two concurrent WP:RFArbs at the same time? I'm not trying to cause trouble, I just worry that Cla68 already has his hands full dealing with what is already (most likely) a contentious case without having to be involved in a second one at the same time. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan, I really don't think this remark [30] is helpful. Yes, there was the usual Slim/Crum/Jay team. But there were lots of other good and constructive editors who opposed, and lumping them wholesale into a "clique" isn't appropriate. FWIW my view is that this whole mess has been blown way out of proportion. Maybe there should be some general admonishments (toward both sides) but there has been too many rancorous comments and calls for extreme action. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of semi-protecting this article? Not surprisingly it is getting a lot of drive-by vandalism, and I think semi-protection would stop a lot of it. Thanks Doug Weller ( talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Jehochman. I noticed that you created the request for checkuser for User:Xp54321. This user seems abusing multiple accounts again. You might be interested that they created an RFA and voted to support themselves with User:Sman.grimtuesday and User:71.182.108.14. I am not familiar with submitting requests for checkuser, so I am asking you to take a look at this and submit it if you believe that this is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. User:Metros has started the sockpuppetry page. Cunard ( talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we are thinking along similar lines there. You may wish to review Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 5 and Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 6. I managed to propose and enforce a set of fixed criteria, the article survived AfD, and User:BrownHairedGirl closed with a rename which seems to have enforced relative peace and stability on the article since, as far as I am aware. This is an analogy and not a strict comparison, but a lot of the group dynamics are comparable. Question; if we were to centralize debate on renaming all the "terrorism" articles, where would be the best place to centralize it? -- John ( talk) 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
All set. Help me think up a cool shortcut? WP:TERROR, WP:TERRORISM, and WP:TERRORIST are all taken. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that you are fairly policy-oriented, and wanted to make sure that you noticed my question here. Kww ( talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI, you've been mentioned at Talk:Keith_Henson#Category:American_criminals. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 05:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI he returned to the Allegations article and reverted three times before the page was locked - I think he's just spat on your good faith in unblocking him. John Smith's ( talk) 08:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman - my RfA closed today, successfully. I wanted to thank you for your support, both directly and in the discussions within the RfA, and also for the coaching. I know we didn't do a huge amount together, but what we did do exposed me to several different elements of Wikipedia that I wasn't aware of, and ultimately helped me to focus on what I enjoy doing. Hopefully I will find the admin tools useful in this regard! Best wishes Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Please confirm if you're withdrawing your proposed remedy 1, so it may be removed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, I know you've been fairly convinced by the evidence of sock and/or meatpuppetry in the Giovanni33 ArbCom case, but partly because of that and partly because you have some experience evaluating sockpuppetry in general (and these accounts in particular) I just wanted to ask if you might take some time to have a look at a new section of evidence I added. Thanks!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman. I have a question for you regarding my arbcom case. I've asked it before on the case pages but you may have missed it. This is in regards to your statement that while before you thought I was behind the puppets, you changed your mind to block me citing that "several admins" wrote to you and that this caused significant doubt on your part. I understand if the admins and the evidence that they may have presented are private in nature, and I do not know if they have written directly to arbcom nor not. However, if you have evidence which caused you to have significant doubt over the accusations I currently face in arbcom, it certainly is relevant and I would like to make sure that this evidence is considered by the committee. Therefore, can you relay this information to them, in one form or another (e-mail or by posting it to evidence page?) Thanks. Giovanni33 ( talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was browsing through something else (the "Wikipedia effect", you know!) and happened across User:Zoporific and User:Snocrates, who apparently used to share a room and computer, and went through a sock-abuse discussion. I'm unclear whether the final opinion was that they were socks or genuinely separate, but my only real concern is that the tag on User:Zoporific is inaccurate as he's not blocked. If it's intended that he be blocked then someone should do that, otherwise is there some more accurate tag I should change it to? Many thanks! -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Je, you followed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot more closely than I did. My first encounter with Sadi Carnot ( talk · contribs) was over the Extra-Long Article Committee, and there has been some fairly persistent perseveration over at WP:SIZE. Can you peek in at this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but inner warning lights are still saying something is amiss here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, sorry to bug you but User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing again. Recently he was formally topic-banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing about conspiracy theories [32]. However that is neither the focus nor extent of his soapboxing. If you remember in November 2007 I raised concerns about this same behaviour on Talk:Feminism and left you a note here (you can see the old ANI thread here).
I also raised the subsequent problems with Haemo - who becuase they were involved in an article on the list preferred to recuse from dealing with it [33].
Most recently Caesarjbsquitti multi-posted a peice about sexism against men in to Sexism, Violence against women and Domestic violence. Originally there were OR problems on his post to the 'Sexism' article [34] but he subsequently ironed that out reverting my removal of his OR and synthestis (but marked his revert as "minor" [35]). He also added the same text to the 'Domestic Violence' article (also marking the addition of a new section as "minor" [36]) and then to the 'Violence against women' article [37].
I raised concerns about how the material was then added to a new criticism section at Talk:Violence_against_women and how it violated WP:NOR and WP:COAT (detailed here). This his response [38].
Is this soapboxing further tendentious behaviour in light of the fact that this user has been blocked, topic banned and previously warned for such behaviour and if so what remedy would be appropriate?-- Cailil talk 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Also as I raised it with Haemo - there may be an issue with the userpage User:Caesarjbsquitti - soapbox on his theories about half-truths and borders on being an ad for his self-published book-- Cailil talk 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
PS see this post to Talk:Domestic violence. Also a quick FYI - this user was warned about this same behaviour in August 2006 [39]-- Cailil talk 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What gives you the authority to remove other people's comments from user Talk pages? -- Jagz ( talk) 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, If you've got a moment, could you look at Atropa belladonna and its talkpage? Some attention by an uninvolved editor might help. --Akhilleus ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of an update for Firefox 3.0? The Add-on dialog for the new version is rejecting the XPI as incompatible. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah this would be awesome. I have gotten so used to this tool that if it's not compatible I think I'll have to go back to the old Firefox. :) Cirt ( talk) 06:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jehochman. Could you contribute any thoughts over at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (5th nomination)? I see you have blocked the *.243 IP as a Davkal sock. If you know his behavioral pattern, that might justify blocking *.109 as well. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Jehochman, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line Review Me! 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the sockpuppetry case, although sadly it won't reverse the damage it has done. The retired user burnt his bridges when he resulted to abuse. Thanks anway! = ) -- Cameron * 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
First, for circumventing a block - you have my word that I will not do this again. I've read your profile page, checked your edits, and you seem to me someone who is a tribute to Wikipedia, and for that, I apologize for my untoward behavior, and any imposition I've put on you. Please be assured that I have never harmed any living thing in my life, and have no intention to. There is no threat, explicit or implied, in anything I've said to AnotherSolipsist. I was simply jerking his chain, because an independent watchdog group watches his edits, and I think he's a danger to the credibililty of Wikipedia. If you look at his edits on such things as Pedophilia you will see he is a very clever POV artist, and the source of a lot of misinformation. However, none of this really matters anymore, as I'm so disgusted with this project that I've 4 years of time and effort into, that I want nothing to do with it anymore. I wish you the best of luck, however, in making Wikipedia better with your obvious respect for the principles that made this website great at one time. I ask you one favor, if you feel inclined to do this for me. Please just leave my user page alone now. I get the point. Just leave Googie Man be, and I'll move on. Best, the former editor Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 ( talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[40] forestPIG 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For reversing the decision on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fonez4mii I had almost lost faith when nothing was getting done about this. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
Barryob courteously notified me that my decision was reversed. Let me just explain what happened on my end. I looked at the list of suspected sockpuppets at the top of the page, then I skipped to the checkuser results, and I saw that Wikipiere was not Fonez4mii, so that ruled out the possibility of multiple accounts stacking consensus, and I didn't see a problem with the anonymous edits. Jehochman's diff number 7 on the SSP [43] showed that User:Fone4My was a disruptive sockpuppet of Fonez4mii. I had been unaware of that, and had I known, I would not have closed the sockpuppet case the way I did. I hope those of you who needed to work overtime because of my lack of awareness will forgive me for it. With the volume of workload I handle at SSP, a mistake of this type is almost impossible to prevent, so I can only apologize and try to be more careful in the future. Yechiel ( Shalom) 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jehcohman,
Thank you for your help on improving the Big Valley Fishing vessel article.
-- Grandscribe ( talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser just had said the case didn't need looking into, heh... Thatcher suggested it be listed as a normal sockpuppetry case, but that would be an exercise in futility because we definitely know those are sockpuppets, it's painfully obvious. The point was that the guy looked like he was going to be really persistent at first, so I wanted to explore whether a rangeblock would be feasible. But he went away, so it's a moot point now.
So... I should have just left a comment to that effect then? I'm just trying to understand what the right process is if the checkuser says, "Take it elsewhere," and I'm like, "Enh, nevermind." :) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have come across a sockpuppet of User:Atari400.
This edit [44] lead me to my accusation, along with the fact that many of this IPs edits seem to be similar to those of Atari's. The IP is hesitant to Afghanistan being considered South Asian [45]. Atari has made similar pages many, many times. Their edits also coincide with Atari's interests as per his userboxes [46]. They both have edited regarding slave trade, Middle Eastern military, and various Middle Eastern and Central Asia articles. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
[47] 71.107.70.47 is the same as 71.107.84.105. 71.107.84.105 changed it to retire too. He did not retire. He was banned for being a sockpuppet. Atari400 was caught with a sock puppet before on Template:Countries of the Indosphere, which is now deleted. Can something be done with Atari and his socks? Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Two points, and I hope you don't take offense at these:
That said, thanks for your RFCU work. Regards, Antelan talk 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Another occurrence Antelan talk 01:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jehochman,
Sorry about the last upset about editing the Lyme page. I made the mistake of deleting a paragraph which made a sweeping statement that was not backed up by a reference (that 9 of 19 web sites were..). I should have modified it rather than deleted it.
I added in several carefully and moderately worded worded statements about the 'other side' in the Lyme debate (supporting the idea that chronic Lyme infection might actually exist, and pointing out that the infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) came in for some pretty heavy criticism for excluding academic opinion from its panels... only to find them systematically blocked out within minutes by someone who reverted them to the original form. The site seems to have been hijacked by some partisan, who refuses to let the opposite side state their view in any objective way. It is unfortunately just true to the IDSA way of doing things (sigh).
Is there any way we can have some moderator on this, someone not from either camp who makes the decision? I am an academic biologist (at Rutgers University) and I can I am sure find such a person. The page is just not 'working' at present. It has become a propaganda tool for one side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foundinkualalumpur ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
When the redlinked conspiracy theorists are ready to settle in and conform to Wiki policies and guidelines, they may find I'll be sympathetic to working in due weight discussion of chronic Lyme, providing they can provide reliable peer-reviewed sources and will accept due weight for the non-mainstream theories. The last time I checked, my doctors (Jones, Fallon and Phillips) certainly aren't in the "Steere camp", but we're not going to make any progress on the article as long as it's being used for advocacy purposes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, sir, even I have doubts about my RFA... God Bless and tanks for the comments... Blake Gripling ( talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.
See you around the wiki!-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You reopened a sock puppet investigation, and then took some measures against User:Fonez4mii, here, but since then, new evidence has come to light here, though you need to read down the page a bit, as the two cases are intertwined a little. As a result of this, I have reviewed the evidence on request by other users, and reached a decision to indefinitely block User:Fone4My with the reasons given in User talk:Fone4My#Sockpuppetry (second section). Since you had taken previous action, I wanted to let you know of this, as the two situations follow on from one another, though are different. DDStretch (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope you're good... you may recall that shortly before (another) one of my indef. blocks last year, we began a conversation about entering into a dialog about my editing and stuff like that - I came to you then because I've noticed you around the place, and always found your posts thoughtful and helpful (even when I disagree with them) - and it's in the same spirit that I thought I'd point this page out to you, and ask for your input / advice. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman Talk 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Baidu-serp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just dropping a line. Durova's opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cailil-- Cailil talk 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, it's easy to get along with people when there's mutual respect. Do you have any insight on how to deal with the opposite situation? Or are other people just duffers ;) ? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may want to look at this checkuser case, given that you blocked and then unblocked Giovanni for puppeting. Note that Ratatoui has been confirmed as Supergreenred. John Smith's ( talk) 19:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Your link on your user page to the HGTTG wikiquote page is broken due to a typo. I humbly suggest replacing the existing code with [[q:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]] -- Kendrick7 talk 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've given him a final warning, though you may want to rectify the entry. John Smith's ( talk) 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one trying to make a big deal out of this. This is one line of history in a very long list. -- Kendrick7 talk 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair point. If he wants to play around with the page I won't waste any more time worrying about it. John Smith's ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Your popular little citation tool isn't compatible with Firefox 3. Any chance of an update? The grapevine is mumbling with requests. Best, Durova Charge! 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
[48] Goodness knows what I did there... Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while this would be a great redirect to Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, WP:MOBY is already a different page. Neıl 龱 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. The parade of obviously linked sock/meatpuppet agenda accounts at Lyme disease continues to grow in size and disruptiveness. Latest entrant is Freyfaxi ( talk · contribs), just blocked for 31 hours for disruption by Gwen Gale. I'm wondering if you feel uninvolved enough to oversee this rapidly degenerating situation in an administrative capacity. It's your call; if you feel too involved to use the tools, I'll post another request for administrative attention at WP:AN/I, but I'm rapidly tiring of the status quo. MastCell Talk 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (they'll be back :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably because it came from the wheel war debate, but I think "Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to antagonize other administrators." should say "Administrators should avoid performing sysop actions that are likely to antagonize other editors and administrators." Any antagonistic sysop action is unhelpful. It's difficult to judge this though. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
While the article might need a bit of cleanup and expansion, I don't get a sense that Elonka was violating COI; she was just trying to clean up the article. Sceptre ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I respectfully ask you to please not take anymore clerical or administrative actions on the RfC as you did here? Your involvement has been questioned so it would be much better if you just asked an uninvovled admin to handle these types of things. Having you take such actions will simply cause more drama. Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep it on the talk page and notify each person you complain about. It is wrong to criticize people and not give them opportunity and space to respond. I think that drawing so many subjects together will make even more a mess, but that is your decision. Jehochman Talk 11:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)