Jump to content

User talk:Wimt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 130.226.169.133 (talk) at 13:49, 9 April 2007 (→Block log: read it then delete it please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

<div class="metadata divbox divbox-yellow" title="

Welcome to my talk page" >
Welcome to my talk page
Please leave any messages for me at the bottom of this page. Alternatively, you can also e-mail me.
Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived by Shadowbot3.


Archive: Feb 07 - Mar 07 - Apr 07

Will

I am sorry for any trouble i have caused you i was only trying to attak gilliam for taking away the squirrle tag article. I apologize cause i no you were only doin your job. I hope in the future we can be friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Con-61 (talk • contribs)

Responce to deletion of page

Well, the loser topic which you saw fit to delete, may have proven to be benificial to those hoping to understand the English language and words commonly used in it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACV777 (talk • contribs)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.

My bad - you shouldn't have gotten the warning. for removing warning tags My apologies -- master_sonTalk - Edits 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

  • Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the revert to my userpage just then. J Milburn 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football edit conflict

Sorry for reverting your revert on Football - I was trying to undo an anon's page blanking ("soccer sucks") by rv'ing to their previous edit. But then I edited conflicted with you, who rightly undid their previous three edits (which I didn't catch..). Long story short: the result was I undid your reversion. Not my intention. Sorry.  :) 132.205.67.135 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Revert.

Thank you. :) Acalamari 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For some vigorous vandalism combating, I award you this well-deserved barnstar. Already beat me to reversion a couple of times today. —Anas talk? 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude

Thank you for your revert of my userpage!--Xnuala (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalSniper

You've been approved to use VandalSniper. Please let me know if you have any problems getting it working. --Chris (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On blocking user "216.125.42.135" from editing

Wimt, thanks for notifying "216.125.42.135" of his various attempts at vandalism to my user page and various other Wikipedia entries. I'm an ardent Wikipedia supporter and want to make this an even more awesome place than it already is -- I have been notified by "216.125.42.135" that he intends to continue vandalizing Wikipedia because of a petty personal argument I had with him. Because of this, I would like to request that "216.125.42.135" be blocked from editing. Dylan Knight Rogers 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism from my user page yesterday. --Ann Stouter 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Revert AGF on Treasure of Delta College by 80.134.197.248

Hi Wimt. Could you please tell me how page blanking can be considered an AGF edit? I am with CVU and in most cases, we consider page blanking as Vandalism. Could you let me know whether you meant to tag it as a Good Faith edit, since I warned the IP as I did not consider it so. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - yeah I totally agree with you that blanking is almost always an editing test or vandalism and so certainly wouldn't merit the assumption of good faith. However, you will note in the case of Treasure of Delta College, it was made by one editor and then tagged for speedy deletion. An anon IP then came along and then blanked the page. In cases such as these, I tend to assume good faith because the anons are often trying to delete the article (as the tag states) but obviously going about it in all the wrong ways. Of course, I may have been wrong in that case as I see you have since given the anon a warning for spamming. Hope that explains my choice of edit summary. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's chill, Will. Thanks - I added the CSD G11 to the article cause it looked like it was advertising some sort of event, which I believe it was. Some IP's can try and be helpful, but I wish they would use the edit summary like everyone (or near everyone) else does! Thanks again. Thor Malmjursson 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (aka Thor). (talk to me)[reply]
Agreed - things would be much easier if everyone used the edit summary. But, unless there's a decision taken to enforce using the summary, I guess we'll be guessing the motives of IPs for some time into the future! Will (aka Wimt) 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thanks for adding that unsigned template, by the way. Saved me some effort :-) Will (aka Wimt) 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NP. HTH. Thor Malmjursson 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) :)[reply]

Integer

That was a quick revision!! I was about to change it, but then I saw you did! Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RChris173 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. --Guinnog 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Vandalism warnings

NO U! --Breakthetubes 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello, I need help with something. I've been trying to revert vandalism for a while now (a few months), and I've been able to do so fairly easily, but it is hard at times, could you point me to where there are tools to make fighting vandalism easier? Brain40 [talk] [contributions]

Minor Information

I replied. Sancho 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage.

Thanks for undoing the vandalism to my userpage. -Enviroboy (Talk|Contribs) 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for un-vandalizing my userpage

':) Leafyplant 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Block log

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Dmcdevit+&page=User%3APernambuco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.169.133 (talk)

And this proves what exactly? I never stated the User:Pernambuco wasn't a sock. Will (aka Wimt) 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, Mauco used that sock and other 3, with months before, pretending that are not the same person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.226.169.133 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Best of Mauco's sockpuppetries

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[1]

Personages of the show

  1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [2]
  2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [3]
    Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.
  3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [4]
    Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.
  4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [5]
  5. User:MariusM, opponent, bad guy, edit warrior, black sheep.

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

  1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[6].
  2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [7]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [8].
  3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [9]
  4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [10]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[11]
  5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[12]
  6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[13]
  7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[14]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[15]
  8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[16]
  9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [17] [18]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[19]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [20]
  10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [21]
  11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[22]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
  12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[23], [24]
  13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[25]
  14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[26]
  15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[27]
  16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [28]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [29]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[30]
  17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [31]
  18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[32]
  19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [33]
  20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [34]
  21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[35]
  22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[36]
  23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[37]
  24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [38]
  25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [39]
  26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[40]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[41]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [42], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[43]
  27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[44]
  28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[45]
  29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[46]
  30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[47]
  31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[48]
  32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [49], [50]
  33. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[51]
  34. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[52]
  35. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [53]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [54]
  36. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [55]
  37. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[56], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[57], "I see. That's bad news"[58]
  38. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[59]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[60]
  39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [61]
  40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [62]
  41. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[63]
  42. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [64]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[65]

Hiding evidence

  1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [66]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wimt&oldid=121419010"