This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(
Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)
(
Archive 2, July 2008 - April 2009)
(
Archive 3, April 2009 - November 2009)
(
Archive 4, November 2009 - July 2011)
(
Archive 5, July 2011 - December 2012)
For all you do. We need more Wikipedians like you :)
Sue Rangell
✍
✉ is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Someguy1221, given you have only made three edits in the last three months to SPI cases, it appears you are mostly inactive as an SPI clerk now. Please stand down as a clerk or move yourself to inactive (whichever you prefer) so that we can get a better idea of how many active clerks we have. Thanks. -- (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I undid your edit to the Steubenville article. That content's inclusion in the lead was subject to a recent discussion on the talk page. I appreciate your observation that the cited reference did not reflect international coverage. I have remedied the situation by adding two additional references, one from the Guardian, the other from CBC News. Cheers. -- Rawlangs ( talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221,
Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia. I appreciate your attentiveness to my SPI request.
Your response was rather harsh. And, I am clearly not a well seasoned editor. So, If you could cut some slack, I would appreciate it.
What constitutes serious evidence? I took a look at some of the other SPIs. Very vague statements in many of them... and checks are done. And, quite often something is found.
I am witnessing some form of WP:GAMING, or meta-activity. It is systematic; not coincidence. If I were to go in there and move a comma, SouthernNights would be on it in a hot minute; while Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's edits to the extreme stand for months. Two accounts acting in concert. What do you call it?
You call the accusations baseless. But, how is it SouthernNights is the guy who deleted a profile, but insists on all the points made by the account he deleted?! That's not baseless. That's obvious!
You mention the account in question is an editor in good standing. Why is that relevant? They are in good standing until you find out they are gaming the system... Does being an administrator mean SouthernNights has enough clout the enjoy the privilege of being beyond suspicion? Someone who has been editing a lot would be more familiar with wikicheating, and be likely to carry out Sockpuppetry, and be very good at it. So, I don't accept that seniority has anything to do with being beyond reproach.
Many Thanks Verdad ( talk) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A very sincere "thank you" for continuing this discussion with me. Please believe me when I say fair, honest, and respectful editing is very important to me- as important as the article referenced in the SPI request. I don't edit a lot. So, I don't have access to the check user box. That means I have to go at this pretty blindly. The only way I know how to find out about what I suspect is going on is to request SPI.
I see your point that 2 users agreeing is not evidence of sock puppetry. I agree that you are right about that. And I hope you will agree I am not your sock puppet for doing so. :) Maybe if this isn't a clearcut case of sock puppetry, you can direct me to answers to my general concerns.
I wish I had known there was such thing as WP:GAMING a long time ago. No one explained that to me. Gosh, if I had known there was an article on it... Because, what I have experienced it pretty much "textbook."
Yeah, user:Alabamaboy technically does not exist anymore. That is part of my point. They both have edited the same article in the past. SouthernNights "closed out"/deleted Alabamaboy. SouthernNights takes up the same positions, with the exact same points, and has the exact same syntax as Alabamaboy. Either it's the same person with multiple accounts, or there are two users who know each other so well that one user with experience editing the same articles as another is chosen out of a whole universe of administrators to close that user's account. It was this that first raised my suspicion. Has SouthernNights (not the account, but the person who controls it) engaged in sock puppetry in the past? I think this is important to know, especially when he appears to be acting in concert with another active account.
Both users - SouthernNights and Alf- have extensive edit history and well maintained user pages. If I were investigating SP, at a glance it would seem ludicrous that anyone would even suggest one of those accounts is a sock; and I can see how someone would deal with the request fairly harshly.
In reading up on sock puppetry, I see a section on meat puppetry; which is considered as the same bad conduct. Again... gosh, if I had known there is practically an instruction manual for that strategy.... (If I had know there was editing "strategy" in the first place!)
This speaks more toward general philosophy on good faith editing, and may be a can of worms; but, how do you enforce meat puppetry abuses? Do I need to show that these two users know each other personally, and that there is offline collaboration. I don't think I could do that.
Does collaboration have to be expressed or implicit? Is it allowable to be complicit with edits from one editor whose POV is closer to one's own, while draconian toward a different POV? Can a user breach consensus building agreements by non-action with regards to editors with similar POV and action with regards to editors with competing POV? Do you agree a well seasoned editor would know what would constitute as bad faith editing, and take steps to avoid such an accusation.
Can one user stonewall another user- wikilawyer, invoke guidelines with little explanation, threaten to ban, block, etc with no reason and little warning- while allowing another user with a similar POV to tinker with the article in question?
When I say I feel there is a systematic effort to promote one POV, I mean a disciplined strategic effort to portray an institution in a negative light which violates the principles of good faith editing. Maybe, in time, I will find a term for it. But, for now, I just have to describe to you what is going on.
I am dealing with some serious challenges in the article Montgomery Academy. It is an article about a private school in the US South, founded in the late 1950s, that has for much of its existence lacked any measurable amount of student diversity. You can imagine the implications. The school is exclusive and elitist. Its acceptance rate is low, and its attrition rate is high. The school has more enemies than friends.
I know first hand it was founded by individuals who valued education, who wished to send their children to elite post-secondary institutions; and realized they were approaching their formative years. The school has always officially maintained in its published documents and on its website it was founded simply to provide a better education. It says nothing about race or politics. Maybe I'm wrong about this. I believe an institution's self description should take precedence over outside POV, no matter what the prevailing public opinion is.
The article about Montgomery Academy experiences rapid drift toward one POV- a very negative one. It doesn't take long to get boiled down to just a few elements (meaning entries about the school's campus, athletics, and academics are systematically deleted) and for the article to become an exploration portal for segregation academies. At least one of the founders of the school is still a living person, and most of the first students are certainly living. So, the characterization that the school was founded in the spirit of continued segregation is particularly damaging.
In the process of building the article, SouthernNights first created the page as a stub which asserted the school was founded in the spirit of segregation. He had no sources at the time, and set about mining quotes. For that reason, there is some very severe recontextualization involved in the cited sources. Anyway, "reliable sources" aren't always reliable, right?
For example, take Allen v. Wright. Concerned parents sued the federal government in the 1980s to reassess the tax status of nonprofits which received municipal funding and furnished facilities for youngsters in a city where neighborhoods were de facto segregated and private schools lacked diversity. Somehow - and this is totally beyond my understanding- this Supreme Court case was construed as evidence the Montgomery Academy was founded as a seg academy. In another instance, he cites a book with a limited run of publication in response to my questioning his prior sources. 2 weeks later, and -thanks to the good people at Amazon- $49 lighter, I find out the quote in question is taken COMPLETELY out of context. In fact, while very educating, the passage paints a much different picture than what SouthernNights asserts it does.
It is issues like this that SouthernNights is unwilling to begin to compromise, or even have a discussion. My attempts to collaborate in good faith are met with WP:LAWYERING. It seems to me he is very disciplined in the strategy. This, of course, does not jibe with the 5 Pillars. That is, Wikipedia is here to provide truthful, relevant, accurate, and informative content to interested readers; and editors should come to collaborate in an constructive way, and in good faith.
What do you suggest I do? Does the fact there is something of substance to the issue of SouthernNights/Alabamaboy have any bearing on SouthernNights' treatment of the article and Alf? What is my recourse if I am being silenced by an administrator bent on a specific POV?
Thanks again. Verdad ( talk) 11:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the process, and its burdens of proof, and for the info on 3O and RFC. I just didn't know about those. That's amazing that there is a forum to get other editors interested in an article. I thought I was getting double-teamed and out of options.
I noticed you do a lot of editing and policing around scientific topics. I think that is awesome. And I don't envy the work that I'm sure goes with it.
Wikipedia Administrator's Award | ||
THANK YOU! Verdad ( talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
Verdad ( talk) 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I see the following when I click "Request for oversight":
Before requesting oversight, please check that this post includes one of these issues:
Even on the monitors page, it says "This is generally used for highly inappropriate posts such as private phone numbers, email addresses, pornographic links or other criteria for oversight." ( Wikipedia:Article_Feedback/Help/Monitors#How can I request oversight?)
All of the documentation points to oversight of email addresses. Is the tool's documentation on oversight criteria outdated? If not, why did you decline oversight to some of my requests? The Anonymouse ( talk | contribs) 08:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch ( talk) 09:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, are you able to take out the edit summaries as well? As they pretty much explain what the problem info was. Many regards. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess this section is about the article I'm thinking of. I just removed another comment from the same user at the article talk page. I don't know if it warrants revdel, but you may like to look. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Hey, why did you remove some of my talk page? CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 09:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
They are arguing that there are two Wikipedians living in the same house and they used the other one's account by mistake. I don't see any real compelling reason not to believe them, and one would assume the blocks have already sent the message not to let such a thing happen again. The first admin on the scene seems unconvinced that it was an accident though. Consulting with you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. I thought you had blocked Jennifer Dombrowski's IP indefinitely, but it appears she's editing under the IP again. I didn't see any appeal to the block. Am I missing something? -- Mesconsing ( talk) 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hiya. I opened a SPI on Che Arthur d/t various issues with the presentation of information, creation/deletion of multiple accounts, possible sockpuppet, etc. One thing I noticed was a large number of IP edits with a /WHOIS coming from Dublin, Ireland. I'm sure this is purely coincidental, but an admin closed the AfD as "no consensus" that the SPI was addressing while the SPI is active, and the admin User:Stifle hails from, of all places, Ireland. Could we get the closure undone while the SPI is open? Just to cover everything so we can just assume good faith and all until it's cleared up. I notified the admin as well so he knows. Яεñ99 ( talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you were involved in the sockpuppet investigation of this user and this IP, 173.63.52.210 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), has made a very similar revision at Abdallah Deeb that GOALWAY has, GOALWAY's revision and IP's revision. That IP has also made a number of edits to other Jordanian football pages, just as what GOALWAY likes to do. GOALWAY is blocked indefinitely so I think it should looked into. Banana Fingers ( talk) 16:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Possibly more block evading, this time it's 75.99.159.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same type of edits just like the one in the Abdallah Deeb page that I have mentioned above. Banana Fingers ( talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Since you blocked User:RickyBowers66, I thought I would bring this to you. User:NodoHorchata showed up yesterday, making virtually the same edits as ricky. FYI---do what you wish with it. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 00:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please go back to this case asap and CLOSE it. There have been numerous instances of disruption in the past by someone suspected of being User:Richard Daft but there is no problem with this guy CDomm, other than his questionable retaliation to a bad IP attack, and he should not have the SPI "cloud" hanging over him. I have been one of the two main targets of "Daft" so I should know and I have been on the site now for over seven years. The nomination by a relatively new editor was a knee-jerk reaction. Cdomm is a potentially good editor with much to offer so let him get on with it. This "sockpuppet mindset" is OTT and helps no one. Thank you. ---- Jack | talk page 21:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221,
I had uploaded a content with the title "Digital Well File(Wellsite Data Distribution Concept)". The content was deleted by you a while back and I would like to request your assistance on this. I believe there was no evidence of the content being copied from another website. I also firmly believe that there were no names of companies/organizations in the content that served as an advertisement for a particular company/organization. If you could enlighten me why exactly this was deleted, I'll be much obliged. Thank you for reading.
Sureshbabu12345 ( talk) 10:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the three accounts belong to me. I apologize, but I'm a novice in the world of Wikipedia. I have tried uploading the content under different accounts, each time when any of the community member deletes it. I was of the notion that I'm supposed to create a new ID each time the content gets deleted. Now, I went further to learn that I can use the talk page to communicate with the community members using talk page. Hence, I started the discussion. So, could you let me know how I can revive the page I uploaded initially? Thanks in advance.
Sureshbabu12345 ( talk) 11:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
User talk:181.152.87.247: Just a heads up. You blocked this nut from Colombia for 31 hours. He will be back. He started many years ago. Always the same MO. Always the same article. Started at 31 hours, and it soon grew into 1 year. He run out of IP addresses from home, school and work. Always from Colombia. Whenever he finds a a new unblocked IP he does it again. No other edits anywhere else. There are a few of us watchlisting this article. He gets 1 year for block evasion on sight. Check out the history of the article: AN/TPS-43 and you'll see him doing it over and over from 2006 non-stop. I watchlisted this new IP. Will block for 1 year next time. Note the article was not protected because it is only one guy and that will send him to a new article. -- Alexf (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the user Casilerrodeldiablo is the same person as User:Marcospace Jun19 ( talk) 05:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Arctic Kangaroo 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
For a check if Watchingeveryevent is a sockpuppet of User:Marteau, do i have to open a formal case at sockpuppet investigations? Thanks, Tagremover ( talk) 11:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Someguy please help block/unblock, thank you. Wikipatrolwatch ( talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Dual Survival, 4th time is the charm hopefully. — - dain- talk 00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You kindly semi-protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wheeldon and it has since been heavily edited with a bias against a single subject again. The version I edited it to contained up to date information such as a picture, spouse etc and I also tried to make sure the content itself was unbiased and covered full career. There are massive gaps now and it focuses on one topic. There is not a mention of my current main company So Purple Group. I have no issue with a genuinely unbiased page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwheeldonWiKi ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Someguy, please have a look at the history of Sergio Goldvarg, where one finds EolexMax ( talk · contribs) and Mocetuzoma VI ( talk · contribs), both blocked as socks of ChronicalUsual; I have my doubts about the SPA Automotocrazy ( talk · contribs). Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
SG, thanks for your support during my RfA. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Thanks for reverting my page so quickly! Excellent to know that such vigilant individuals contribute to wikipedia and to ensure that their help does not go without notice. Jab843 ( talk) 04:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC) |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
I'm not even sure if I should be giving you more barnstars since you clearly have too many already. Certainly appreciated your promptness in offering advice and investigating a couple of SPIs. Mkdw talk 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC) |
What? You blocked me for correcting a broken link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.28.175 ( talk) 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Just a couple of hours after his 1 month block he performed his first edit as an unlogged editor [ [1]]. It's obvious him since he did a similar edit in the german wiki the same time [ [2]], not to mentions the ip location. Alexikoua ( talk) 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Someguy. I'm not trying to get in your way, but I've warned this user regarding their threat of legal action. I recognize that this individual probably has no grasp of the situation and I phrased my warning with that in mind. You may have already considered action with regard to this situation and I will not proceed with my usual pace when I encounter NLT matters. If you have definite plans in mind, simply let me know here or my user talk. Regards Tide rolls 05:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You have been mentioned. Proudbolsahye ( talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
He just keeps hopping from IP to IP [7] [8] [9] (all of them out of Berlin, all of them with Alice DSL as the ISP). Is there anything that can be done with this guy. There is just no stopping him. Thanks, Athenean ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to restore his talkpage access? At the moment the argument is going round in circles because he can't contribute to it, which means people are ascribing motvies to his conduct which can't be confirmed. Black Kite ( talk) 18:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Dropping you a courtesy note to say that I have unblocked, as emails and posts by Cla68 have assured me that the reason for the block is moot. More on his talk page. Kevin ( talk) 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Unfortunately, I can't see filter 534. Could you let me know which rules are being applied / which strings it's looking for? (Feel free to email if you don't want the information publicially available). I'd just like to check that it catches all the variations that the editor likes to try...
bobrayner (
talk)
13:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I posted an external link on the Tappan Zee Bridge wiki that was published on many individual Patch sites throughout the Hudson Valley and outlined the historical costs of the TZB. It was accompanied by the only graphic illustrating the structure's financial history.
I am just not sure why you considered it SPAM. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Krz11 ( talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I have written a large number of articles, many of which should not be links from Wikipedia. But I honestly feel the article was a thoughtful, thorough, investigative piece containing information not found anywhere else (specifically the 1930's history. Why would I care if it comes up in search results..it was a regional story that came and went.
Thanks again for your time
69.124.148.15 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Another new account made and more empty edit requests. See my contribution history. HkCaGu ( talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
When you blocked Ksdlafmaslkdfgg;aldsnk, you disabled talk page access and email. Was this intentional? It's a Fox! (What did I break) 12:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your intervention. Some cleanup might be required also on the talk page of the Higgs boson article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Help, or discuss, please. See WT:Notability (summary) for an unresolved discussion of the radical changes I asked you to revert previously. See WP:Notability (summary)(history now gone) and Template:Notability (summary) (history all here now, as if this was the primary article since inception). Another admin, User:JohnCD seems to oppose the change too if it alters the appearance: "V T E" appears now. I advocate doing it the same way as at NFC/NFCC, and having no template. Any template should simply tranclude the article (which can have <noinclude></noinclude>). The editor seems intent on having his template be "discoverable". Who cares? Gah. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Notability (summary)}}
, and with
Wikipedia:Notability (summary), you would just add the namespace by typing {{Wikipedia:Notability (summary)}}
to transclude it. It has the same effect. (Not watching this page.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)My pc is exceedingly clunky, and I might have some "double click" issues - but I should have checked the entire page/history before sailing off. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Apparently a user named 'AnusFeast' was using the same shared-IP, is there any way for you to solely block him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinepamgems ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
TempName1 ( talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Even before the latest round of sock blocks, the same master now seems to be editing Lord Colvill as an IP - 92.238.189.170. Agricolae ( talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Someguy1221. I saw your name in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000/Archive. This suggests you might have advice on what to do about semiprotection of California Polytechnic State University. I opened a talk discussion at Talk:California Polytechnic State University#Semiprotection may be considered. The idea was to consider a really long semiprotection like a year or more. I hesitated to do this with no consultation since I don't know if the recent warring is due to Mangoeater1000 or something unrelated. Do you have an opinion on the semiprotection? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
With my deepest gratitude for your help Yunshui 雲 水 10:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yunshui 雲 水 10:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thank you for explaining what I always considered to be one of the most complex and arcane elements of Wikipedia in terms my poor decaffeinated brain could understand. Hugely appreciated - plus there's now one more admin who can do these bastard merges. Yunshui 雲 水 10:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Took me a little bit to find you; there is no User:Somemguy1221 :-) Steward work sounds best; these accounts have started making quite the mess even in the last few hours, and an account created to attack another user started piling on the vandal messages onto my talk page, prompting someone else to protect it. Nyttend ( talk) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think it was necessary to delete it, it was reworked by User:Deb. I agree that the other articles were terrible. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Suspected socking going on in Kunchacko Boban and Dulquer Salmaan. The user User:Mollywood1 seems to be the sock of user User:Flowers_of_the_world who was blocked by you. JK ( talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Someguy, I'm up to my knees in socks today. I wanted to thank you for your comment at this report. It took me a ton of time to create the report, and it's nice of you to recognize that. Also, thanks for reopening the Lac47 report. I don't know what'll come of it, but it'll at least get a thorough airing. Regards.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Someguy1221/Archive 6, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{ subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • AAPT) 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC) |
Jayadevp 13 07:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Someguy1221. If you didn't already know, this matter had been reported at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. And just like I predicted, the person has revealed his or her Wikipedia account is trying to continue the problematic behavior. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
BO | Talk 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
... when caught for sockpuppetry and a (disguised) attack on my work? Be sure, this not makes me happy. The Banner talk 01:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you have blocked Flowers of the world on March 20, 2013 for sock puppetry. Now a new user London at night has surfaced who shows the same editing patter as Flowers of the world. I request you to kindly look into this. Salih (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for the help! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC) |
My thanks to you and your team for your hard work and for publishing the results that fast. I do appreciate it. I would prefer to show that the cited "possibly" is exactly 0%, so let me know if there is anything I can do to prove it, anything at all, and I will gladly do it. Thanks again. ~ DanielTom ( talk) 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You were incorrect in restoring Civilization Jihad, even in user space; attack pages (it was deleted under G10) may not exist in any namespace. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You blocked all of Intel from editing Wikipedia... I don't think there's any case of Intel abusing Wikipedia and all of the edits done with the public IP are easily traceable to individual DHCP IP's. Maybe you should reconsider?
134.134.137.71 ( talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy. I am referring you to recent judgement issued by the District Court in Jerusalem after 2 years of litigation. The Court rejected Israel Hershberg's denial of paintings painted by him in the early 1980's signed "Hartzvi" (hebrew for Hersbherg). These are 3 paintings purchased by a Baltimore based architect back then. The judgement triggered a buzz in israeli media. See links: http://www.haaretz.co.il/1.1969092; http://www.court.gov.il/BookReader/getbook.asp?path=%5C%5CIDCNFSV01%5Cidc_repository3%5C850%5C476%5C79046a59923d40c4bc52f7ccd035206a&OlvDataProto=file&Language=Hebrew&Hebrew=1&ReaderStyle=ILCourts&h=A2CE933E194CD950A8D7CE78D0D9821D&OnePageMode=1.
See also http://israelhershbergsearlyartwork.blogspot.co.il/ that posts the agreement from 1982 in which Hershberg admits to usage of the "Hartzvi" signature (section 2 of the first page). thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.10.242 ( talk) 07:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Just did. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.10.242 ( talk) 09:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Someguy 1221 thank you for your attention to the Neumont University Wikipedia pages. The egregious actions of CollegeTimes in the months before and after Neumont suit are relevant to the story of Neumont University vs. CollegeTimes. The complaint filed by Neumont (and subsequent legal documents) characterize the issue as Cyberstalking, extortion, harassment, and onoing libel - it is not a complaint regarding a few negative reviews.
I am glad that you see how hideous Mr. Nickles' use of that article was in his ongoing cyberstalking against the University, and I will not add that link again. I wasn't certain of a better way to show the true nature of the CollegeTimes cyberstalking of the University and his poor judgement and escalating harassment in the months following the filing of the legal concern. Mr. Nickles has been so prolific in creating content to slander the University (and anyone associated with University administration or this legal matter) that mentioning his ongoing harassment is relevant to the story of what people will read about Neumont. Your edits to the Neumont page are now not a correct or accurate characterization of the legal issue, or Mr. Nickles' pathological and erratic behavior. How do you propose we correct the record to make the Wikipedia page reflect the true facts? Berstabit ( talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Berstabit (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't certain where you would choose to reply. Noted on the link issue, I will link to the legal statements which characterize Nickles behavior. But the original legal issue is also mischaracterized by labeling the matter as Neumont objecting to negative reviews, their complaint claims that Nickles extorted them and generated the content himself. I updated the article to be accurate to the factual record but the update was deleted in removing the link to Mr. Nickles blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berstabit ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with Berstabit and NU DOE and User:Nemont, thank you to ElKevbo for finally deleting the Controversy section from the page, our prestigious university doesn't deserve these attacks on our reputation. President Obama and Steve Forbes have both declared Neumont is the best computer science program in the United States. We are not a sham. Lymani ( talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Only five hours after it was called stale, at least one of the IP's is already back at it again. I don't know what can be done or whom to ask, but this vandal and everyone's inability to even slow him down, is seriously taking away the joy of WP:ing for me. Please have a look here. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding GNU C-Graph. The thread is Complaint Against Summary Deletion of "GNU C-Graph".The discussion is about the topic GNU C-Graph. Thank you. - Visionat ( talk) 16:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just been told he's back. Robin Whood ( talk · contribs). Obvious sock. I expected him back, he may have others doing some of his other favorite topics. Dougweller ( talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I just read /info/en/?search=User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association which is a comment you left on another user's talk page about acceptance of a dubious AFC.
This editor came to my attention because of /info/en/?search=Eric_Sanicola - the subject of the article came onto #wikipedia-en-help, confessed they'd written the whole thing themselves, we gave them the usual spiel about COI, proper references, notability not being infectious. At the end, up pops Coolboygcp, "sure, I'll approve it". Looking at /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Coolboygcp shows a slew of dubious acceptances.
I'm writing here because I'm not very experienced, and I'm not sure how best to tackle this. I asked them about it in the same IRC channel today, making no progress. Pinkbeast ( talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I could not help noting your earlier attempt to make edits to the Eugene Plotkin article and being bullied by one of the other editors on that article. I am now experiencing the same thing. If you could take a look at my comments on the talk page of that article and the BLP Notice Board, and weigh in with your thoughts, that would be great. Factchecker25 ( talk) 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Why am I blocked? See this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AAmal89 You blocked me, I don't get it. Could you explain? - amal89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.114.50 ( talk) 18:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that using/ making another account is no big deal. I can change my ip and so can create any number of accounts. So, blocking me or not blocking won't make any difference. Why block me then? In fact, I can be anyone. 117.192.108.74 ( talk) 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I can also be this Someguy221 ( talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Were you trying to achieve some sort of mental satisfaction by blocking me? You can block this new account,.I just need to switch over to another ip and not tell you who I am. You wouldn't ever know me. Why block then? It's a bit immature don't you think, this blocking and unblocking. Basking in the powers of an admin, does it make you happy? Ineffective, don't you think with all the power to block and yet you could do nothing. Someguy221 ( talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. He iro 20:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymani ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi
In addition to this check done by a CU I would like to add that after a check on svwp the following accounts (and one IP) are confirmed as the same as being used by the same person. And the sockmaster is E.G. ( talk · contribs · block log) and not 891 mm ( talk · contribs · block log) so IMHO the account 891 mm should be blocked permanently as well. Anyway, the accounts (and the IP) are:
I came to you since you were the admin that blocked the other sockpuppets (this time around - E.G. has been using multiple accounts under several years on both svwp and enwp to change consensus) GameOn ( talk) 05:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've moved you to temporarily inactive on the clerks list since you haven't acted on a case in over a month. Feel free to move yourself back to active when you return. Hope all is well! -- Rs chen 7754 08:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 12:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot ( talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC
Forgive my intrusion on your talk page, but a recent perusal of AN/I brought your name to my attention. I have been "discussing" the article Talk:Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823) with an editor by the name of Someguy1122 [11]. This editor appears to not understand, or care about, what constitutes original research. I was curious if you had run across this individual and if this individual is using a form of name quite similar to yours for some other purpose? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Back in January, you warned User:Flagrantedelicto about outing another editor. I don't know what the deal was, but after an incident I filed an ANI thread for another reason. It was revealed earlier today that, during the incident, he did what another user feels is an outing attempt. You might want to take a look at this. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that 203.215.117.134 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a similar editing pattern and may be in the same range with the other 203s that you blocked. hmssolent\ You rang? ship's log 09:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Rather than open a new investigation I just reopened the current one and added more detail. Please let me know if you'd like more examples for the connection. nableezy - 01:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, are you going to extend Kauffner's block per the SPI? It seems warranted as the sock was used for continued disruption at the article. Cheers,-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Rs chen 7754 17:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
A Barnstar! | Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize
Awarded to Someguy1221 for your extraordinary efforts to protect Wikipedia during the Morning 277 Sockpuppet investigation. The Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize goes to sysops who tirelessly block returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· cont) Join WER 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC) (First awarded by Durova in July 2007) |
Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask around, I don't see an automatic prescribed way to get this fixed, but I'm sure it'll be dealt with soon enough. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 07:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I describe the evidence here for a rather large sock case. I know large cases can be time consuming, but I think this one is important and I believe that the way that I have set this one out is fairly straight forward. What I would like is your advice on whether to proceed. Thanks in advance. I am One of Many ( talk) 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Added the most recent ones with evidence and analysis above your endorsement of the one you endorsed. ~ Charmlet -talk- 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I got a mention from you, saying that I was a sock of sorts. I am not nor am I associated with Morning277 or any other users on that page [13].
Mirahlucas ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping with this. You closed it with the remark "other accounts are blocked" but didn't mention Oforokeke ( talk · contribs), whose account hasn't been blocked. My comment there, dated 21:16, 15 July has evidence. — rybec 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure we can say this dispute is resolved. I believe Jimbo made it very clear how he feels about the situation.-- Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I saw your block of User:=HT=Chief. What about User:HTChief, which is the same person. HTH. — SMALL JIM 11:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you accuse me of being a sock? I don't even no misconcptions2. The sock investigation has been on for long time, when do you guys plan on closing it.-- Lonelydream ( talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
a13ean ( talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Jytdog ( talk) 20:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at " Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. -- Olegkagan ( talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 03:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
Thank you so very much for your thoughtful help at WP:COIN, about the GMO question. You truly stepped up! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, Someguy. I notice you blocked 41.103.100.94 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Meanwhile, indeed before your block, 41.103.84.150 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) went medieval on the last two people who warned 41.103.100.94, Thomas.W and Fnlayson. These IPs are both supposedly static, but apparently there's no problem moving between them. I've asked NuclearWarfare about rangeblocking. [14] Unless you'd like to do it? Bishonen | talk 09:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC).
I think an immediate block is needed for Misconceptions2 because of this [15]. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 02:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
L Faraone 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Someguy1221. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221! I noticed you deleted Pheed and blocked User:Tedteeth01 - I'd looked earlier, and there didn't seem to be enough evidence to show that Tedteeth01 was a Morning277 meatpuppet, as opposed to a general paid editor. Was there something I missed? - Bilby ( talk) 06:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
if you are the person who keeps taking the articles about shokof and his maximalism, would you Please, let us know how else should a note be added to the subject where you and your associates for any and all reasons try your best to prevent public to know who originated the terminology, the long manifest written about it, and over 600 major paintings in over 20 worls ranked art exhibitions by daryush shokof who started this whole philosophy and vision in 1990? is it possible for you and your associates to Please, explain why and how you are not able to track his works. paintings and arts under maximalism?! i have been personally in one of the first exhibitions with shokof under maximalism and can simply not understand how can people ignore facts in these days and times where much can be viwed on the net, only when one wants truly to see and verfiy the truth behind such most sensitive and important social , artistic and creative issues?! friedjohnsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.234.194 ( talk) 07:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221 it seems i am not the only person trying to correct notes on the origin of maximalism.this thoughts and art movement has been founded by daryush shokof and is well established in some exhibitions worldwide with wide variety of artists participating in the exhibitions under maximalists. it seems that we "who care about the philosophical and content of maximalism from its found shokof" do not get the edit right? somehow whatever the article used for the correction is always being taken out?! more strange is that you use the same articles to begin the explanation of maximalism and for whatever reason "leave" shokof completley out of the article?! can you explain this?! we have seen his works, read his manifest about maximalism and the famouse one liner Balancing the chaos=balance=life=maximalism anyone else ever said and or define maximalism in such compact words before 1990? shokof,s first exhibition seems to have been in 1990 and whereas all other names now associated with the movemet are way after the date 1990?! can any of you in the wikipedia explain what is happening?! thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.27.234.194 ( talk) 11:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Lukabri ( talk · contribs) left a request for unblocking. It wasn't active until just now, when I fixed the markup. I've left a comment on Lukabri's talk page. — rybec 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you look at this case? [16] You have experience with this account. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot ( talk) 15:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
1. Since the IP addresses are open proxies, they deserved to be blocked even if they weren't being used by sockpuppets. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
2. In addition, English Patriot Man is in England, but he isn't English. At least, he doesn't write Standard British English. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I got screen detached today. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 02:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
New English Patriot Man SP. [17] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Andrew 327 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry sir . That was not at all intentional . I was trying to add my talk and removed your by mistake . It will not be repeated . Sorry for the discomfort sir. 1.38.20.19 ( talk) 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 1.38.20.19 ( talk) 22:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
DES (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, would you like to comment there? — rybec 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll contact you later about other pages that you protect. In the meantime, the case article is infrequently edited recently. Since BLP violation had occurred in the past, perhaps lower protection to "pending changes" instead of "unprotection"? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
about an obvious sock. Dougweller ( talk) 10:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I was looking to resolve the unblock request here and am quite perplexed after reading through the talk page. What are your thoughts on the matter? The user seems very eager to please (which I view as suspicious in this case). John Reaves 01:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Someguy, over here -- Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives#92.39.193.81 -- you said that archive.is gets rejected as a valid cite, regardless of what domain it is caching? That seems pretty uber strict, is there any evidence that folks have been tampering with the contents, or otherwise uploading whatever-some-blogger-said? Does the same policy apply to archive.org, as well? Can you fill me in on which specific abusefilter/editfilter is doing this, please.
And I'll belatedly ask, how are you with quick questions? Are you allergic to WP:WALLOFTEXT? :-) Because there was also somebody named Jack on the same board, who I could pester with my questions. But if you have time, for a chat about the innards of filters, I'd appreciate it. If busy, please just say so. Either way, thanks for improving wikipedia -- you clearly have done-a-ton. You can reply here if you like, or over at my talkpage if you would like a quicker turnaround-time. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 04:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello - you recently blocked User:AsadR indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is the 9th sock account in the last couple months I've filed a report on, all of which seem to be single-purpose accounts dedicated to patrolling Ronan Farrow and deleting unflattering information; most likely all the same person at a reputation management firm. These socks also, in a very aggressive manner, assail reputable Wikipedians and call for them to be blocked for "disruptive editing" - creating the appearance of a large number of independent editors raising issue against a lone editor in a sparsely trafficked account. As a recent target of this lobbying - and an intense episode of name calling - by the publicist in question, I've decided not to actively participate in WP any longer, however, I did check in today and noticed that the complaint against AsadR was validated. In light of that, I wanted to inquire as your amenability to rolling back Ronan Farrow to this edit version which was the last version prior to extremely substantial edits made by the "AsadR" identity of the publicist. Thanks for your consideration. BlueSalix ( talk) 01:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 07:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day ( see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Be that as it may -- and I fully support civil conflict resolution, I have come to the point where I no longer believe in wikipedia as a source for factual information the way it used to be entrenched in hard cover encyclopedias. You might say that they were written by the Brits and they are not objective. It is however the case that those editorial -- teams -- at least came to a concensus on describing facts.
What I have witnessed over the last few months watching and participating in the wikiepedia world is that there are many users who are not interested in describing the world in facts but rather painting a world as they see it. If they have to, they delete, alter or block.
And that to me Sir is politics -- not credible editing just normative world creation based on individual -- at many times misguided -- political beliefs. The Soviet Union editors also edited history books on a monthly basis in accordance to their leadership wishes.
I no longer believe wikipedia is a world for seeking knowledge in truth. It has become a political war for world creation. That's just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekd s ( talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You blocked User:Shuttlecockcock. User talk:ShuttlecockMasterofDisaster is a sock or sockmaster that is a WP:VOA. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 05:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Do me a favor and close that AfD over at Grey DeLisle I withdrew it, as I didn't realize there was a notability guide for voice actors. The article still needs work though. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 09:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey. You just blocked User:Gofuckyourself2200. The user seems to be also editing as an IP. Thanks. Widr ( talk) 05:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Someguy1221:
WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long
Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the
drive's page and help out!
Delivered by EdwardsBot ( talk) at 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have a suspicion about a sockpuppet but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know how to "prove it" save for some odd similarities in rare articles being edited by the same account. Could you give me a hand on how to proceed? — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 05:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Someguy1221, User:Jpschwartz is a good example of an account I see fairly often where a business is named after the person and the user page appears to be there to promote the business rather than have anything to do with the person. What should I do in the future? Should I leave them a warning that they need to remove the promotional stuff from their user pages or they could be construed as a promotional account and may be blocked? Cheers. I am One of Many ( talk) 05:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks for your response on the 'false positives' page. much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf the wolf ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm edit-conflicting with you all over the place: you're faster on the draw than I am. As for Daddy daddy daddy, I've semi-protected Scott Bacon; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Go feck r selves Wik. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 05:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream ( talk) 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with me bumping it up to indefinite. I think a week is just way too lenient. This guy should've been indef'd when he threatened physical violence last time he was blocked.--v/r - T P 14:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
See the AN/I discussion -- where MilesMoney deliberately wikilinked my name to get me the sixth notification in less than a day from him ... he proudly states As for the red notification box, triggering that is no more annoying than saying User:Collect, and there's no policy against that, either. I suspect there is actually a policy against deliberate and continuing harassment after being told to stop, [18] is his sixth harassing "create a notification" act in less than a single day -- and I am, as you put it, getting pissed at it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Many thanks for your technical expertise, and consistent contributions to the Village Pump! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 12:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for taking action regarding the IP who objected to their comments being removed, see the archived AN discussion.
They have returned and I'm wondering what should happen next. Their comments at the moment are not what would normally be removed as an attack, but they are obviously just warming up and I don't think they should continue. The IP insists on naming a good editor at every opportunity, with unsubstantiated claims that attack the integrity of the editor.
At the moment, the IP has undone my removal of their comment at Talk:Marian Dawkins ( diff) and has done a trivial edit to another article, with an edit summary again attacking the editor ( diff). It's a bit unusual, but maybe semiprotect the articles and talk pages for two weeks ( Animal welfare and Marian Dawkins and Pain in animals)? Or, pursue WP:RBI? Johnuniq ( talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Someguy,
Awhile ago you places a lockdown on this page about me because a party was editing in text that violoted my Artists Moral Rights. I see that now this has been reversed and that the offending text has not only been replaced but further added to. I kindly request that the page be reverted to the locked state it was in. I would appreciate your assistance and cooperation in this matter as it distorts, damage and violates the biography of a living person as we then discussed. Many thanks in advance. Israel Hershberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.12.28 ( talk) 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you took look at this as you are experienced in this issue? [19] Again-same sources, phrases, sentences and ideology.Active on the same articles as before. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Someguy1221! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
You indeffed user:Williamsburgland on Feb 21, 2014 for sockpuppetry (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Williamsburgland/Archive ). He's back as user:Williamsburghand. He admits to being a sock on his userpage but claims to have abandoned his trolling. He's making similar edits as before and is already involved in edit wars. As a blocked user he's not eligible for a clean start (and he's connected himself to his old account so it isn't a clean start anyways), so it's just block evasion. Shouldn't he apply to get his block on user:Williamsburgland lifted if he wants to contribute again? Meters ( talk) 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you haven't looked at my appeal yet. Can I just use this screen name? Also, can you please add this account to my list of socks? I need it for my records. -- Williamsshirtpants ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I am writing to you for two reasons. 1. You list yourself as willing to perform rangeblocks and 2. your involvement, a little over a year ago, in a sockpuppet investigation into 089baby ( talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/089baby/Archive), as I feel a rangeblock is necessary for containing his sockpuppetry. Recently he has taken to IP hopping, using registered accounts only for creating articles. All the IP's he's used are in the 36.27.0.0/16 range, with the third number ranging from 192 to 203.
As evidence, I point to the timeline of account usage. From 6 November to 4 January, 9 different accounts of his blocked were blocked in as many weeks, and then he stopped all of a sudden. Assuming I haven't missed any, the next sock wasn't registered until a month later. From 10 January onward, there was dramatic increase in edits to articles frequently edited by 089baby from IP's in the range in question, there having been only around 20 edits to article on Cambodian football (his subject of interest) in all of 2013. Add to that the fact that the only edits made by the two most recent socks Kakalara ( talk · contribs) and Nevercare12345 ( talk · contribs) were to create the same five articles, with all other edits to these article, except some routine maintenance, coming from IP's in the range.
I have already posted on the Administrators' noticeboard about this, but the post has gone unanswered for two days. Additionally, I have also contacted @ Reaper Eternal: and @ NativeForeigner: who both also have some involvement in this case. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 08:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. [[User talk:|Niemti]] and I are once again involved in a conflict on the Jessica Nigri article. I tried talking to him on his talk page, but he again violates WP:CIV, WP:EDITWAR, WP:3RR and now WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, and refuses to respond to my requests for clarification in a straightforward, civil manner. I have started a discussion at ANI. Since you're familiar with past problems involving him, can you offer your assistance? Thank you very much. Nightscream ( talk) 01:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Need an oversight committee member to delete an edit that includes my personal email addy. Atsme ☯ talk 18:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Someguy,
Thanks again for the rangeblock of IP's used by 089baby. It came out of effect today and Jamesson123 ( talk · contribs) was registered. His edits so far are innocuous enough, but the subject's he's edited and the timing do make it somewhat suspect. Is there any way of determining if this is the same person other than just waiting to see what he does? (Previous accounts are probably stale so CU won't work). Also, I'm about to go on holiday, so if you could spare a moment to check in on him over the next days it would be much appreciated. Cheers. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
So on Codex Sangallensis 48 you have two references to a Godeschalk, which doesnt go back to any sort of person of note back then. However there is a Gottschalk of Orbais, a monk that had generated controversy by writing on predestination that was declared heretical at the time. And according to the Gottschalk page of people with that name it could also be spelled as Godescalc. I think that Godeschalk is really refering to Gottschalk, but would like your opinion on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofgun ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)