User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to User talk:JBW/Archive 84) (bot |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big><big>Please post new sections at the ''bottom'' of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.</big></big> |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 84 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(10d) |
||
|archive = User talk: |
|archive = User talk:JBW/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
<!--TABLE MUST START ON NEXT LINE START, ELSE SANDBOX BUG--> |
|||
{| CLASS="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{lc: }}|yes|small|standard}}-talk" |
|||
|- |
|||
{{#ifeq:{{lc:attn }}|none|<!--NONE--> |
|||
| {{!}}{{!}} [[Image:{{#switch:{{lc:attn }} |
|||
| blank = No image.svg |
|||
| plus = B plus.svg |
|||
| lang = Nuvola apps edu languages.svg |
|||
| info = Info talk.png |
|||
| attn = Emblem-important.svg |
|||
| stop = Stop hand nuvola.svg |
|||
| frag = Merge-split-transwiki default.svg |
|||
| #default = attn |
|||
}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc: }}|yes|30px|50px}}|User talk]] |
|||
}} |
|||
|<!--NEW CELL--> |
|||
<div style="background-color: #FAFA00; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"><big><center> |
|||
<br> |
|||
At present I am editing at a very much reduced rate. I am unsure whether I will eventually return to editing regularly or not. I will try to respond to messages here, but you may have a long wait for me to get back to you. If you need any help with administrative matters that can't wait, I suggest trying another administrator. |
|||
<br> |
|||
<small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 15:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
: </center></big></div> |
|||
* '''If I left you a message on your talk page:''' please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (<nowiki>You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.</nowiki>) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) |
|||
* '''If you leave me a message here:''' I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. |
|||
*Please add new sections to the '''bottom''' of this page, and new messages to the '''bottoms''' of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. |
|||
:{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{hidenew}}} }}|yes||{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{runon}}} }}|yes||}}<SPAN CLASS="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit§ion=new{{#if:|{{#ifexist:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/|&editintro={{urlencode:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/}}}}|{{#ifexist:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/editintro|&editintro={{urlencode:{{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}/editintro}}}}}}}} Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.]'''</SPAN>}} |
|||
: |
|||
*After a section has not been edited for two weeks it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them. |
|||
|} |
|||
{{archive box | auto=yes }} |
{{archive box | auto=yes }} |
||
==Deutsche Standard== |
|||
New sources will be added within 2 weeks, as i did not have time due to a new job. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.17.79|172.56.17.79]] ([[User talk:172.56.17.79|talk]]) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Response == |
|||
{{Talkback|Stephen B at USDA}} |
|||
== Probable disruptive sock of the banned [[User:Januarythe18th]] == |
|||
Sorry to bother you, JBW, but a new user has suddenly appeared and started to make major changes to the article [[Brahma Kumaris]] and [[Dada Lekhraj]]. Those [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=619723370&oldid=618639658] are in general very similar to the ones previously made by the user [[User:Januarythe18th]]. His claims [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#This_page_reads_like_an_advert] on the talk page are also very similar. It seems obvious that he is a sock for the number of similar words, expressions, claims, and disruptive, religious prejudicial type of editing. Any help would be much appreciated. [[User:GreyWinterOwl|GreyWinterOwl]] ([[User talk:GreyWinterOwl|talk]]) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Reply to|GreyWinterOwl}} At a quick glance it looks as though you may be right, but I don't have time to check properly at the moment. At present I have no internet access at home, so I won't get a chance to look into it before tomorrow, or possibly even the day after. However, thanks for calling my attention to it, and I will get onto it as soon as I can. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Reply to|GreyWinterOwl}} My internet access has now been restored, and I have looked at the editing history. I have found a few edits which possibly suggest the two accounts are the same person, but nowhere near enough evidence to justify any action. I can also see definite differences between the two editors, but that means very little, as there is reason to believe that Januarythe18th may in the past have faked differences between two accounts that he or she used, to avoid the impression of sockpuppetry. Can you give me some specific edits that look suspicious, beyond just a general feeling of similarity? The fact that both editors have a similar critical view of the editing of the same article is not enough, as there may be many people who share similar views about the religion. You refer to similar words and expressions; can you show me a few examples of the different accounts using strikingly similar wording? (You may like to do so by email, to avoid warning the editor what give-away signs to avoid in the future.) <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Sure. Can I send the evidence by email in wiki format, so that I can include diffs? Thanks. [[User:GreyWinterOwl|GreyWinterOwl]] ([[User talk:GreyWinterOwl|talk]]) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{Reply to|GreyWinterOwl}} Yes, that's fine. Even if you send wiki markup that doesn't work in the email, I can easily copy it, paste it into a sandbox, and click the "preview" button, so that I can read the wiki format without actually posting it to any Wikipedia page. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 19:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I have looked at the evidence you gave in your email, and I have given you my conclusions on your talk page. My comments are [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreyWinterOwl&oldid=620891074 here], in the section headed "Possible sockpuppet". <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 09:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== SPI == |
|||
Just wanted to bring this one to your attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newzealand123]. Thanks. [[User:Logical Cowboy|Logical Cowboy]] ([[User talk:Logical Cowboy|talk]]) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Response to your message == |
|||
{{Talkback|Pigman}} |
|||
== Response == |
|||
{{Talkback|GreyWinterOwl}} |
|||
== Second opinion requested == |
|||
== Possible Young Living Sock Puppet == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/2600:6C50:7A7F:2333:0:0:0:0/64&target=2600%3A6C50%3A7A7F%3A2333%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64&offset=&limit=500 Hopping all over the place with MOS violations] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=1262725838 isn't vandalism?] –[[User:Skywatcher68|Skywatcher68]] ([[User talk:Skywatcher68|talk]]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Can you please help me? I believe that [[User:Tpmeli]] is a sock puppet for the company [[Young_Living]]. I believe he is Thomas Meli, a Young Living distributor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6pA7lluDbc). I cannot undo (rollback) his edits due to edits which have occurred since then. What should I do?[[User:Christopher Lotito|Christopher Lotito]] ([[User talk:Christopher Lotito|talk]]) 16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Yes, {{U|HJ Mitchell}} is perfectly right; I see no reason to doubt that the editor believes that what they have been doing is improving articles, so it is not vandalism. However, vandalism or not, the editing is unacceptable, so I have blocked the /64 range. I find cases like this frustrating, because what we are dealing with is an editor who would long ago have been blocked, very likely indefinitely, had they been using an account, but because they are using IP editing, and especially because they are using an IPv6 range, they get away with it for years on end. It happens all the time. (The first warnings to this IP range were in July 2021.) [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. –[[User:Skywatcher68|Skywatcher68]] ([[User talk:Skywatcher68|talk]]) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Could be. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I considered a disruptive editing block but I went back to September and couldn't find any evidence that anyone had actually explained what the problem is. That should always, always be the first step. And @Skywatcher68 no, MoS violations are not vandalism. I strongly suggest you read [[WP:NOTVAND]] before you make any more AIV reports. You'll find experienced editors who don't lnow about MOS:DATE so why would an IP? [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges == |
|||
Christopher - |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/175.107.216.70 175.107.216.70] is exhibiting the same behavior. –[[User:Skywatcher68|Skywatcher68]] ([[User talk:Skywatcher68|talk]]) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I AM a young living distributor and I corrected numerous factually incorrect data - please see the talk page for details on how much was completely off about that page. - |
|||
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} This is one of those really kind and helpful block-evading editors, who do their best to make what they are doing as blindingly obvious as they can, by various clever little tricks such as making every one of their edits on pages previously edited by the blocked editor (apart from one talk page edit back in July). If I were evading a block I don't think I would do that. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Expired rangeblock needs renewal == |
|||
I invite you to please look carefully at what was changed and the talk page between greyfell and I. What exactly you basing the conclusion that I am a "sock puppet" for the company on? I corrected incorrect information and suggested edits that would portray the company as it actually is. The article was clearly written mostly by a competitor that was using wikipedia to smear the company. Isn't that an obvious conflict of interest? I was attempting to remedy an already egregious situation. |
|||
Our uncommunicative friend at [[Special:Contributions/2600:8801:7180:7B00:0:0:0:0/64]] has begun his disruption again after a year-long block expired. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please proceed with evidence instead of accusations that aren't based on actually cross checking the information to see if it is accurate. |
|||
: Thanks for letting me know, {{u|Binksternet}}. I've blocked again for three years. I've also included in the block rationale a link to a talk page where I've posted a fairly long message about the background to the block. As you no doubt know, it can be very difficult to be sure that an editor using IPv6 addresses sees talk page messages, and while it's certain that this editor has seen at least the block rationales, it is possible that they have seen few, or even none, of the talk page messages. |
|||
: I've already thanked you for alerting me to this, and told you that I have acted on what you said. Nevertheless, I should like to mention that I don't like the way that you posted a series of templated warning messages at escalating levels on the latest talk page, without any further edits between those messages. I don't know what your reason for doing that was, but it doesn't seem constructive. I also don't see it as at all necessary; for an editor with such an extensive history of warnings and blocks it seems pointless to do anything less than tell them right away that they are likely to be blocked again immediately. (In that case it's a good idea to briefly mention the history of range blocks, not for the benefit of the problematic editor, but for the benefit of any administrator reviewing the case. I don't know how many times I've seen a perfectly good report at AIV declined by an administrator who checked only the history of the single IPv6 address reported, not the range.) [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW#top|talk]]) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the action and the advice. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:51, 22 December 2024
Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Second opinion requested
[edit]Hopping all over the place with MOS violations isn't vandalism? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: Yes, HJ Mitchell is perfectly right; I see no reason to doubt that the editor believes that what they have been doing is improving articles, so it is not vandalism. However, vandalism or not, the editing is unacceptable, so I have blocked the /64 range. I find cases like this frustrating, because what we are dealing with is an editor who would long ago have been blocked, very likely indefinitely, had they been using an account, but because they are using IP editing, and especially because they are using an IPv6 range, they get away with it for years on end. It happens all the time. (The first warnings to this IP range were in July 2021.) JBW (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: Could be. JBW (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I considered a disruptive editing block but I went back to September and couldn't find any evidence that anyone had actually explained what the problem is. That should always, always be the first step. And @Skywatcher68 no, MoS violations are not vandalism. I strongly suggest you read WP:NOTVAND before you make any more AIV reports. You'll find experienced editors who don't lnow about MOS:DATE so why would an IP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: Could be. JBW (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges
[edit]175.107.216.70 is exhibiting the same behavior. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: This is one of those really kind and helpful block-evading editors, who do their best to make what they are doing as blindingly obvious as they can, by various clever little tricks such as making every one of their edits on pages previously edited by the blocked editor (apart from one talk page edit back in July). If I were evading a block I don't think I would do that. JBW (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Expired rangeblock needs renewal
[edit]Our uncommunicative friend at Special:Contributions/2600:8801:7180:7B00:0:0:0:0/64 has begun his disruption again after a year-long block expired. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Binksternet. I've blocked again for three years. I've also included in the block rationale a link to a talk page where I've posted a fairly long message about the background to the block. As you no doubt know, it can be very difficult to be sure that an editor using IPv6 addresses sees talk page messages, and while it's certain that this editor has seen at least the block rationales, it is possible that they have seen few, or even none, of the talk page messages.
- I've already thanked you for alerting me to this, and told you that I have acted on what you said. Nevertheless, I should like to mention that I don't like the way that you posted a series of templated warning messages at escalating levels on the latest talk page, without any further edits between those messages. I don't know what your reason for doing that was, but it doesn't seem constructive. I also don't see it as at all necessary; for an editor with such an extensive history of warnings and blocks it seems pointless to do anything less than tell them right away that they are likely to be blocked again immediately. (In that case it's a good idea to briefly mention the history of range blocks, not for the benefit of the problematic editor, but for the benefit of any administrator reviewing the case. I don't know how many times I've seen a perfectly good report at AIV declined by an administrator who checked only the history of the single IPv6 address reported, not the range.) JBW (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the action and the advice. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)