Would you go back and take a look at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingOfTheLynn]]? It looks like another sockpuppet has been uncovered which I believe throws doubt on your AGF conclusion. Thanks. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|talk]]) 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you go back and take a look at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingOfTheLynn]]? It looks like another sockpuppet has been uncovered which I believe throws doubt on your AGF conclusion. Thanks. --[[User:Simple Bob|Simple Bob]] ([[User talk:Simple Bob|talk]]) 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
==[[Peter Holmes a Court]]==
Hello. You have been canvassed by another editor/admin regarding my contributions to the [[Peter Holmes a Court]] entry. This page has become contentious again and there are now some editors banning contributors for posting referenced material, not the other way around. Many of the recent edits replaced verified links and referenced material. Some of the most recent deleted material is the most up to date available about the subject. I would like to be able to contribute to this entry and others without the threat of being banned by contributors with greater powers, however at the moment I risk banning even if I touch the entry. Please have a look at the entry and the edit history if you have the time.[[User:Edasent|Edasent]] ([[User talk:Edasent|talk]]) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:17, 4 June 2010
Or: The War Room
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Welcome to my talk page! Please do not bring discussions here from other pages. Please use diffs when talking about edits. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. I check my watchlist regularly. I don't always add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them, unless it's a user talk page or I started an important discussion. Thank you.
Oh, and remember to post new comments and topics at the bottom of the page or the section in which you are discussing and sign every post you make here by simply adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.
Deleted pages – if I deleted a page you were involved with in which you have an issue with, talk to me about it first here. I will be happy to userfy for you, restore the page if I believed to have made an error in judgment, or fulfill any other request within reason. If you would like a copy of any other deleted page to work on, also let me know. Keep in mind that I will not, for any reason, restore copyright violations or attack pages.
I had to go out of town on an extended wikibreak, so I wasn't able to respond to your comments in time. I was disappointed to see the article summarily FAILed, since it appeared to be close to GA quality. Anyway, I've responded to your comments. Don't know if I can renominate it at this point, since it will probably be summarily quick-FAILed for not being out long enough, or somesuch excuse?
Need some help with a user. User:ImperfectlyInformed seems to be obsessed with me to the point of WikiStalking (always wanted a stalker). But it is becoming boring. Could you take a look at this thread through the "courtesy break" and possibly do something with II to keep him away from my edits and away from me. If needed, I will provide a list of the places he has popped up via email. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thanks. As far as II is concerned, there's nothing stopping you from not battling with him on his talk page. In simpler words, try and ignore him. If he wants to continue in his harassment or stalking, then he'd bring the ball to your talk page or do other idiotic stuff like revert all your changes (or take you to ANI, fearing to mention that per WP:BEANS). Anyways, if you want to send me an email, go ahead. –MuZemike04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was kinda feeding that one admittedly. I will take him off my watchlist so I am not tempted to respond back. If he comes to my talk page, I can just revert him. I will email you posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Just a note. I seen you are on the Good Article Project. You might want to know that GAN is in a pretty good backlog. There are articles that have been awaiting review for awhile, one sitting there for 109 days. Wow. I have posted a request on ANI for help and there has been some, but since you are an admin, you might ask some admin friends or just regular editor friends to help out. Reviewing is pretty easy. I even did one :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. Someone told me it was up to 450 articles before, so it is consideribly down. It is 168 waiting for review at last check (could have changed since). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just going to uncritically say that I am stalking and harassing the guy? Could you explain your reasoning? WP:STALKING is a pretty good summary of what is stalking and what is not. If there's no overriding reason, you could make a case. In this case the overring reason is watching for edit-warring and harassment by a user, which is not an unjustified use of the contribs log. It's just a pro-active step to protect users from harassment and biting. It acts as a deterrent - since he knows someone is keeping an eye on him, he'll behave a bit better. If all goes well, I will never step in and revert an edit or report him on edit-warring. I've already told him that when he admits his issues I'll stop watching his edits. In general I'm watching his edits and occasionally commenting in the same pages but haven't engaged with him at all (aside from an offhand comment that I consider him bannable at WP:AN, which was possibly in bad taste but not out of the question when discussing problem editors) or reverted a single one yet, as can be seen if you look at the thread on my user page. If I do see an edit that I think is a problem, I'll drop a note on his talk page. If he doesn't respond or deletes the comment, I may be compelled to bring it to ANI. II | (t - c) 04:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I wonder if I should add this to the report. Just wow. You have just admitted to WikiStalking on an admin's talk page. This one, I think might have to go into the record books folks. Also, I have a psychologist so I will behave better, I don't need a stalker. I also have two parents, I don't need a third. Why don't you leave the "keeping an eye" on me to the people like MuZemike and others whose job it is to keep an eye on all editors, not just me. Oh, and if you post to my talk page, I can technically remove the comment per WP:BLANKING and userpage rules and you can't do a damned thing. When I remove it, that means I have seen it, acknowledged it, and felt it wasn't worth responding. I don't have to respond to damned thing if I don't want to. Looks bad on me. But blackmailing me with ANI really isn't going to make me respond. Just cause I don't respond, you will go to ANI? OK, go for it. You will be laughed out of the Wiki. If everyone went to ANI with all the times someone didn't respond to their talkpage post, ANI would be full to the brim and overflowing. The little orange bar only tells you the most recent post. You and someone else post, I see one bar...and will probably only look at one message. Plus, with the two rules I quoted, I don't have to respond, especially if I am going to get sucked into another pissing match. So...there ya go. Now, I got article work to do, so...yeah. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the last SPI two range blocks were initiated to try to deal with this guy. Both have since expired, and he's back again, with 59.96.28.138 (talk·contribs) and then as soon as it was tagged, he jumped to 59.96.140.215 (talk·contribs) to continue his campaign of harassing me, including trying to impersonate me on my own talk page[1]. Would it be possible to reapply the range blocks? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] is within the /16 range, which I do not think is involved. I'd be causing a good amount of collateral damage as shown here. I think the only other alternative would be to semi-protect right now. –MuZemike08:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pooh...that sucks :-( Wonder if that is where he is editing from...if he is a high schooler, it would at least explain some of his issues. So can the list and my talk be semi-protected for awhile, then, so he at least is without some targets, and can the current IP be blocked as he is still trolling[3]. Looks like he made a new named sock, too User:Karunyam, that he used to uploaded those fake pics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might like to know, he reappeared, made a spoof account of my old name, and made a fake RfC against another editor. I started an ANI asking for options and giving some of the recent history.[4] -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify something for me? The SPI on this user has decided that WP:SOCK#LEGIT applies. You appear to have made this judgement. But he is still blocked as a sockpuppet. This confuses me; could you explain, please? --Anthony.bradbury"talk"17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I handled the SPI, I did indeed AGF there, but when the second account (User:Markshutter) showed up, something else was going on; Markshutter's pattern exactly matched the other two. –MuZemike18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Seeds
Was looking at the contribs to see if you were online (ah, the power of Popups) and see the Happy Birthday post. Was like "oh, it is MuZemike's birthday. Then I seen the "lolsocks" post. Then I got confused...is Dr Seeds User:SGGH? At present, the userpage for Dr Seeds redirects to SGGH. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am awaiting an official peer review, but was told by a FAC delegate to get as many people looking at the page as possible. The page just received GA status today. At your earliest convenience, could you take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and review it (placing it on the page's talk page or mine is fine) independent of the official peer review. I would open to any and all requests during the review. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You speedied and salted (I believe) the page on Eric Violette -- way back in January, I think. (I don't get around here much anymore.) Violette is, of all things, the singing pirate in the FreeCreditReport.com commercials -- and I believe there are reliable sources reporting on him because of it. (A Google search turns up a few -- including the Washington Post.) It's the sort of trivia that's perhaps marginal -- I don't think we're going to see him as the next James Bond or anything -- but he's probably famous enough to make an article about him worthy of discussion. Trouble is, the people creating the page seem to be newbies -- so it's created badly, speedied, and then (because it's been deleted multiple times) salted for long periods without anyone ever talking about it. I looked at taking it to deletion review (which I think is the right approach -- it's been a long time since I did much Wiki stuff)...but I've been kinda busy with work lately, so I thought I'd ask you first to get your thoughts. Should we unsalt? Undelete? Other? Best, --TheOtherBob16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that it was deleted so many times, but they were all per WP:CSD#A7, and all the creations (at least when I went back to about 2008 since any other version of the article before that was complete crap) are completely unsourced. If there are reliable sources out there, I ask that they be provided. I'm wary of undeleting because every deleted version is unsourced, and we cannot have that with a biography of a living person (BLP). It's been about 6 months after the salting (the create-protecton is expected to end on 3 January 2011, by the way; I salted for 1 year), and I personally like to avoid going to DRV whenever I can. As an alternative, we could also send to the article incubator so that anyone can work on building sources before it goes back to the mainspace. There are a few options available here. –MuZemike17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a very quick look, there's this: [5], this: [6], this: [7] (towards the bottom), this: [8], and this: [9]. So that's the Washington Post, USA Today, Miami New Times, Public Radio, and MSNBC -- just on a quick Google. You're right that every deleted version was unsourced -- but I suspect (not having seen them) that they were unsourced because the creators did not understand how or why to add sources, and not because there weren't sources that they could have used if they'd tried. There's definitely enough out there to give us reliable sources for the basic facts, and let us at least discuss notability. The article incubator seems like a good approach -- I can start a bare-bones article there and add the sources, but it may be easier to pull over whatever there was from prior versions (if anything). Best, --TheOtherBob17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for delaying the investigation, the mediation has nearly concluded, and I see no evidence of socking. Ronk01 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at this sockpuppet investigation because it related to a block I made recently (more on that in a moment) and I think, being unaware of the background, you have made some errors in your statement here.
I think these two users are unrelated to all the others; there is no similarity apart from having edited the same article:
However, if you look at the contribs of the five users listed above, you'll see that there is no overlap in their periods of use. I think that the individual has created a new account from time to time, unaware of how this might be viewed thought our jaded administrators' spectacles.
Now, back to that block I mentioned earlier.....
Here's a different user:
The two above accounts are obviously the same person, but again, I don't think the sockpuppetry is necessarily abusive. However, I blocked the second account for persistent BLP violations in Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and JzG reblocked him a few days later for the same thing. You'll notice from the talk page and contribs of the first account that this had been going on for some time. You may also have seen that this is the editor who opened the SPI in question.
The subject of the SPI has only edited to remove the problematic material inserted by Everton Dasent/Edasent, even going so far as to report the problem at WP:BLPN and solicit aid from other editors. It is thus unfortunate that you have described his edits as "POV-style edit-warring involving removal of sourced content and entire sections of text", a characterization that I (and, I think a number of other editors who have been involved with Edasent) might take not agree with.
I hope that you will review your comments at the SPI and consider that it may be appropriate to unblock the most recent of the accounts on the basis that this is a good faith, if naive, editor.
Here's my issue. Even if you disregard the first two which you separated, now you're left with a person creating and abandoning four separate accounts within the past 12 months. I can AGF on someone forgetting a password once and even stretch it to twice, but not four times within a year. That's when I start to suspect other things, like avoiding scrutiny or trying to cover up tracks when someone gets suspicious. That is within both the letter and spirit of what sock puppetry entails.
I may have extended too far by implying POV, (That was my read of the situation.) but the fact remains that content was still being removed, and the user has not been engaging in any discussion on the matter. POV or not, its (very slow) edit warring.
That being said, after taking a second look, I have unblocked the first two accounts as it looks like they're likely unrelated. I think one of the edits from those two raised a red flag as it was similar in nature to the other five, but I can see that may not be conclusive.
However, I am leaving Birkenstock (the most recent account) blocked for the time being. I will not oppose an unblock, provided the person does not keep abandoning and creating new accounts in a way that seems deceptive. –MuZemike01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand completely your suspicions, my only question would be, what scrutiny is it that they could be trying to avoid? For want of a better term, they are the "good guy" here - they reported the BLP issue as best they knew how and reverted an attempt to turn a biography into a hatchet-job - the kind of edits they were making are explicitly exempt from sanction for edit-warring. I think the best course of action might be to leave a note on the most account's talk page, asking them to edit from only that account going forward and offering to unblock them when they indicate that they will do so.
Of course, if there are no further issues with the Peter Holmes à Court article, they may see no reason to edit again and so all this may be moot. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a conditional note on Berkinstock's talk page. If I don't catch him agreeing and you do, I don't mind you unblocking. –MuZemike01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some comments and questions posted here when you have some free time. I am still working on the other areas that haven't been checked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have been canvassed by another editor/admin regarding my contributions to the Peter Holmes a Court entry. This page has become contentious again and there are now some editors banning contributors for posting referenced material, not the other way around. Many of the recent edits replaced verified links and referenced material. Some of the most recent deleted material is the most up to date available about the subject. I would like to be able to contribute to this entry and others without the threat of being banned by contributors with greater powers, however at the moment I risk banning even if I touch the entry. Please have a look at the entry and the edit history if you have the time.Edasent (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
