[1] Vandalism fanatic using the french version on advise how to vandalise and get away with it. i had to tell someone because it may be a problem. --10000 Walls (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Music, like your new Irish/EU banner. Don't know what the protocol is re. such things, but would you mind if I adopt it on my own user page? Hope that isn't considered 'forward' of me. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem go right ahead, take anything you wish. My user page is full of things borrowed off other editors!MITH15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then discuss it on the talk page. Removing text without saying why is vandalism, however engaging in discussion in order to identify reasons why or why not is much better practice. Continued removal of the text without discussion will get you banned as it is vandalism of a page.MITH11:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NI.
That NI is a country in the 'county' sense is a whole new one on me, thanks for revert if it kept me out of 'trouble'. Tfz22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its a strange point of view, but its one which has consensus at the moment. Someone was going to revert you in the end so I though I might as well do it. From what I can see on Wikipedia certain cycles of arguments appear on here. They are 1. the name of Ireland 2. the name of the British Isles 3. the status of E/NI/S/W. Once the Ireland thing is sorted out, all the editors may move onto changing the leads of E/S/NI/W to something more NPOV but for now the leads are set in stone!MITH22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe my actions warrant a block. All of my edits were unrelated and were not direct reversions of the other editor. I'm also not sure how my edit summaries were misleading?MITH19:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in Mooretwin's eyes, but I was attempting a bold edit at the aim of improving the lead. I removed other words too and introduced some new ones. Bold - yes, controversial - depends on your pov, a revert of another editor - absolutely not; it was my own edit!MITH21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for cutting in but I'm a little surprised at the reaction too. I don't think removing the term [Republic of Ireland] is the same as replacing it with for example [Ireland] or other terms that have been the basis of a long running dispute. The unfortunate series of exchanges between Moortwin and Music don't merit a block (in either case) and certainly not for a month in the latter's case. RashersTierney (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bored with your faux-naivity. For the benefit of any innocents watching: MT repeatedly reverted the removal of RoI: [3], [4]. You reverted MT [5] with a dishonest edit summary. Now stop playing silly games William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so even if my edits were deemed as reverts, how did I break 3RR? As you pointed out above it was Mooretwin reverting me; I edited different passages and different sentences and I introduced the edits, and considering they were different subjects how could I have "reverted" Mooretwin 4 times? I am also puzzled by your lack of neutrality. You are attacking me calling me dishonest and accusing me of faux naivety. I though admins were to assume good faith. I am asking simple questions here, I just don't understand how I broke the 3RR rule.MITH23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I was blocked according to yourself? For reverting over the limit? Thats the only think I can potetially see that I did wrong. But I'm still confused to as the reasons why.MITH23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not with you. Reverting means returning an article to an earlier version. - that didn't happen I was making edits. Edit warring is prohibited. See three-revert rule. I didn't break the 3RR rule. Why have I been blocked? From what I can see, I did nothing disruptive or against any rules. If I did break a rule and it caused me to get blocked, what is it? I would like to know so that I do not get blocked for the same thing again.MITH23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I think the unblock was unfair because I didn't break any rules. I did't break 3RR nor was I disruptive in anyway. The admin blocked me for edit warring even though I wasn't reverting any changes of other editors. I think the blocking admin's reasons for blocking me were quite subjective and there is no wiki policy justifying my block. I wish to be unblocked as I am not a disruptive editor and I wish to go back to constructive editing.MITH00:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
There is wikipedia policy justifying your block. WP:3RR states, and I quote "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". If you wish to be unblocked, you need to indicate that you understand why you were rightly blocked in the first place. See WP:GAB. Jayron32.talk.contribs03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I went to W Connelley's page to protest your block and discovered that Mooretwin has been blocked for a month. I wonder if you'd support an appeal to reduce his sentence if he promises to stop edit warring? Coming from you is might soften the hearts of the Admin Community (though I wouldn't bet on it). Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be somewhat willing to do that, but and I know I should assume good faith on his part but I doubt he'd be able to stop edit warring. While you say he's a moderate in the Ireland naming dispute he has been causing a fair amount of disruption on Wikipedia mainspace, almost becoming troll like on talk pages once he hasn't been getting his way. I also doubt the admin community would lower his block considering his previous conduct so ultimately I think an appeal wouldn't get us anywhere.MITH09:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your message on Hackney's talk page
According to WP:LEAD "Verifiability. The lead section must conform to verifiability policy, which advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be sourced (as should quotations). However, with the exception of quotations, such sourcing does not need to be within the lead section itself': since the lead should summarise the body, there should normally be somewhere in the body where sources for the information can be placed." As the lead summarises the article, and everything in the article is sourced, it seems as though he objects to you placing {{cn}} tags for information that is already sourced in the article and there is no requirement for it to be sourced in the lead as it isn't a quote, thanks. BigDuncTalk11:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's about the size of it thanks BigDunc. I just get frustrated when there's a fully sourced article and people add {{cn}} to the lead when it just summarises the article anyway. 2 lines of K30312:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPI cases
Clerk note: please, before filing cases at SPI, read the instructions carefully. Cases must be filed under the name of the master account, NOT the name of the latest sock. Filing under the sock simply means that clerk time needs to be taken up with fixing the case. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. The perceived master account of the sock puppet has changed after my last filing, so I wasn't sure what to do. I'll make sure I do it correctly next time.MITH14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what the current perception of the master is, continue to file under the case name that is now in use. If the case determines a new master, the clerks will move to that new master as needed. Mayalld (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irish cricketers
Whatever about windsurfers, I'd have thought with the resurgence of interest in Irish cricket, notable Irish cricketers deserve at least a mention on the Irish people article. Could you reconsider your edit? RashersTierney (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I still don't think he can be classed as a "celebrity". He's notable enough in the Irish cricket world but on a world scale or among the general public he's still quite unknown. A few good performances doesn't make someone a celebrity, I recommend that he doesn't appear in the celebrities list, but should be noted as one of the better cricket players elsewhere such as Sport in Ireland.MITH15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at List of European stadia by capacity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BigDuncTalk18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MITH, what makes you think that I am taliking about BW in your post here, I think my comment neutral bone in their body would exclude this editor. BigDuncTalk10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't wish to accuse you of any bad practice on your part, you're a good editor, its just in general I'm a bit fed up of this thing being forever delayed by people just not biting the bullet and getting on with the process.MITH11:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland
The Iceland in Ballyfermot did reopen last November. Look at this, this, this and this. Please verify that it has closed before making more edits like that and accusing other users of sockpuppetry. FF3000 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The others are socks. It has nothing to do with content. A sock avoiding a block has to be reverted.
Yeah but that's the UK website. Iceland.ie has been reserved by Iceland for a possible launch in the future but if you read my sources you can see that a store did actually open. I've put a notice on the WikiProject Ireland talk asking that someone who lives near it checks to see if it has closed since (which I think is unlikely). FF3000 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no problem! I don't think anymore editing will take place anyway - consensus on the talk page is against Jonto at the moment.MITH20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:NI flag
From what I see and as far as I can tell, a football ground in Northern Ireland represents Northern Ireland and since NI national football team use the Ulster Banner as the flag (and is willingly and proudly displayed by NI football fans), I beleave that thats what it should be.
In fact, I would like to propose that The Ulster Banner be used next to the football stadiums only and nothing else. Please tell me what you think of that The C of E (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No a stadium is not a football player. I accept the flags use for football players and the team when playing but not for infrastructure that the team uses. Wiki policy states that it should not be used in this circumstance.MITH14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, the grounds that are in NI that are used by NI clubs played on by NI players supported by NI fans who use the Ulster Banner in football, can't have The UB on Wikipedia? The C of E (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDuncTalk20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll on Ireland (xxx)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland naming
Thanks for your comment. Though it appeared to be rude by trying to assert I did not know the difference between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the very reason I changed the sovereign state of Ireland's name to the Republic of Ireland on many articles was to disambiguate between the sovereign state Ireland and the island Ireland. Aogouguo (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly could someone confuse Ireland for the island when they were articles called "List of countries..." and had a flag beside it? There is a extremely small chance a reader could have thought the piece was referring to the geographical island.MITH23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also suggest if you are going to revert my work and I take the dispute to the talk page of an article rather than edit warring like you suggested then it might be helpful if you gave your reasons for reverting my work on the talk page, just as I gave my reasons on the talk page for making such a change. Aogouguo (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask why you are now checking my edit history, reverting all my recent changes, without explaination? If I feel you are trying to gain some sort of revenge for me editing an article in a manner which displeased you then I will notify the Admins notice board. Aogouguo (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done nothing wrong. I saw you changed the map at Argentina without consensus so I reverted it. Again you need to go to the talk page if you want to change it once you've been reverted. Note I have not touched a huge number of your other edits.MITH23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors have been blocked for reverting that phrase on British Isles, I suggest you self-revert before SheffieldSteel wakes up ...--SnowdedTALK04:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I was a bit confused by the BI page. Reverts everywhere and no consensus to be found. I thought I was doing the right thing in restoring an older version, but obviously I was wrong!MITH10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edit to Argentina. In the first place, your edit summary could best be described as misleading, secondly, the information you removed is correct. They do make those claims, whether they're valid or not. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But those claims are not in the map. The map was changed a few days ago, but the heading was not - therefore I updated the heading. Can you please self revert, my edit is correct.MITH19:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth was it misleading? "tidy with change in map" explains it perfectly. Please understand valid English in future and don't accuse people of bad acts when the edits were good. It can be misleading.MITH19:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares if it's cited? If its not accurate and in tandem with the infobox then my edit summary was perfectly accurate. Stop being so obtuse and get on with making positive edits please!MITH19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership
It is not about ownership. It is about management. Both Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí have been making edits in their own sandboxes and not in the draft poll. I'm managing the draft poll, based on consensus found on the talk pages. Regarding the text you keep removing, you have not given a reason for its removal. You have simply CLAIMED that there is no consensus to put it there. All of the discussion I have seen shows that there are three people myself included who think it is useful. You do not, but you do not say WHY. You have to argue a case. You can't just be a loose cannon and be bold here. It's not fair to this difficult process for the draft poll to be a free-for-all. This will go out to EVERYBODY in the whole Wikipedia. Let's not make a hames of it. Please agree to allow me to manage this; it is only a few more days before the poll will begin. Thank you for your consideration. -- Evertype·✆13:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it goes out to EVERYBODY makes it especially important that one person dictates what they think people are saying. As a non moderator you have to respect the rest of us.MITH13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not DICTATING. I'm MANAGING. I'm listening to you, I'm proposing edits to deal with your concern. Just deleting the text from the draft didn't do that. -- Evertype·✆13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a moderator has to respect the rest of us. I've tried (clumsily) to suggest that just going in and deleting stuff you don't like before discussing it and claiming that YOU'RE the one whose right and I'M the one who's dictating -- isn't cooperative or collaborative. I've been trying, honestly, to do a good job managing this document, and yes, a document like this is better managed by one person than by everybody. I'm encouraged by the talk on the Talk Page of the Project. I hope you are too. -- Evertype·✆13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the changes he made which involve replacing categories. The created template, I'm not sure about. Worst case scenario, the titles are changed next week in accordance with what WP:IECOLL comes up with.MITH03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted for now (otherwise cats would be vulnerable to speedy deletion as empty), however I will not continue to populate the remainder of the years pending any further CFD/poll outcome. Tim! (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted your revert. If your cats get deleted then so be it, they weren't meant to be created in the first place. Rule is leave the status quo as it is.MITH17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green background is really and truly not working for me anyway
I don't understand the reason for this edit. You mentioned in the edit summary that you reverted because the changes had been added without reason. But your edit just reverts updates made after the last test? You added a "so far" reference, but the series is over. And you removed the fact that Stephen Jones was the top points scorer. How can this be unexplained, surely they are obvious additions? And Martin Corry captained the team in 2005 according to the Wikipedia article? Greenman (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Corry was not an officially made captain, so isn't to be named in that section. Have taken your other points on board, those were removed/added in error.MITH09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I made one revert, my first one on the page for over two weeks. This block is crazy!! It is clearly not in violation of WP:ARBTRB.MITH12:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]
I don't think the previous warning could have been any clearer, personally. It doesn't matter how much time passes between bouts of edit warring. Having said that, I am prepared to unblock you as long as you indicate that there will be no more reverts on this article without going to the talk page. In fact, it might be as well to fully protect the page whilst such a discussion takes place, because sporadic reverting is getting us nowhere. Black Kite14:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BlackKite, since it looks as though you're handling this, I won't comment on the unblock request, but if MusicInTheHouse is on probation, it needs to be explicitly logged in the case block/ban/etc log. Thanks. Hersfold(t/a/c)16:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probation only restricts an editor to 1RR on articles, and since all Troubles-related articles are on 1RR anyway, I fail to see the point to be honest. This isn't really about that anyway - it's about re-starting an editwar after previously being told that a block would follow if the behaviour continued. Whether it was two weeks later or not is irrelevant. I'd just like MITH to promise not to start reverting on this page again and I am then completely happy to unblock (or for anyone else to do so without consulting me). User:Jonto is a different matter; I would not be minded to unblock him at all since he re-started the revert war. Black Kite17:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BlackKite, IMO the warning from before actually wasn't as clear as you think. I read that as a warning not to revert any further that day, not ever. I would have expected to see "0RR" in the message somewhere if that was the case. Anyway, I think you might as well unblock since the page is now protected: promise or not, MITH is not able to revert any more. I agree, we should treat Jonto differently: I'd support banning him from the page for 6 months. Mangojuicetalk18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've only semi-ed it because an IP user (presumably Jonto, quack quack) had reverted again. **taps fingers, thinking** OK, assuming good faith ...
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
on the basis that I think that the point has been made regarding this article.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Can someone explain to me what exactly I did wrong? It is now acceptable behaviour for an admin to block someone for 1 revert without a warning or explaining circumstances? I really feel hard done by because now I have another line on my block log even though I did nothing wrong. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive and you could hardly call my edits as disruptive. I feel a complaint coming.MITH22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to complain. There was nothing wrong with the block; it certainly was preventative in that I blocked both you and the other editor who had previously edit-warred on the article, and showed signs that it was going to being again. Oh, and "without warning"? - er, this? Just because there was a time gap between bouts of edit-warring doesn't mean the warning was any less valid. Perhaps I should've protected the article instead - however that always brings its own accusations of protecting in The Wrong VersionTM, so I'm usually wary of doing that. In the past I've been accused of being pro-loyalist, pro-republican and every other shade in between. However I unblocked you on the basis that you might now realise that playing political ping-pong on Ireland-related articles isn't going to bring anything else but editing restrictions. You aren't the first, and I'm sure you will definitely not be the last editor to feel aggrieved by it. Black Kite23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Category
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Wow this is random. I'm delighted to see another stupid, hastily made bad block on my block log. I was accused of being this editor before and it was deemed a mistake. Can the blocking admin actually do some real research before dishing out blocks willy nilly? The checkuser result is Likely. While I don't want to go over the top, how on earth does that justify you to block me? I remember this editor as being from Ireland, I'm an Irish ex-pat living in Madrid. Even though I shouldn't have to defend myself as this is just one huge mistake I will go through the process rationally because clearly the blocking admin has not. There is no real evidence to suggest that I am some sockpuppet. Checkuser says likely, and it says contributions are similar? What I revert vandalism from varying articles. I edit from Argentina to Dublin to Pizza Hut to the European Union. I edit so many articles, I could be said to have similar editing patterns to Jimbo himself. No evidence of any bad editing was given, just a statement. Even if I was a sock (even though there is no real evidence to support it) how have I been in anyway disruptive, misleading, or unhelpful in my manner? (which is what sockpuppetry is all about). I request unblock as my there is no evidence of sockpuppetry through checkuser or my contribs, or of any bad behaviour on my part at all! Blocks are to stop disruption, so therefore this block is against blocking policy and I should be unblocked.)
Decline reason:
"Likely" isn't far off from "Confirmed" as far as checkuser goes - editing similarities often are the kicker. Checkuser has shown you're on the same ISP, in the same general location, and are using the same computer system setup as Wikipéire; if you are two different people, there are some rather large coincidences that directly contradict your explanation above. As to your not being disruptive, you have been blocked multiple times (most recently nine days ago), and as Wikipéire is banned, that's all quite irrelevant anyway if you're the same person. Which, as we said, is quite likely. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I was unblocked instantly for that, that was an error, I did 1RR. What are the rather large coincidences that contradict what I say? It also very convenient that the checkuser is ignoring that I am living in Madrid and was only in Ireland for 3 months. You say it's likely, I say its a mistake. You give no hard evidence supporting the claims, how can I defend myself if you're giving generic answers like 'That user is banned, you're from the same general area, your defence is irrelevant as its "likely" you're him/her" without giving real concrete evidence. Please give some real evidence so that I can properly defend myself. You're just jumping to massive conclusions.MITH22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please use another unblock request instead of the adminhelp template. More admins watch out for the unblock requests than to adminhelp templates. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to use an unblock template, as that will clearly fail as I have counter evidence to act on. I want the blocking admin to engage in discussion so I know exactly what "evidence" is so "damning" that a "likely" CU has resulted in a complete block for myself.
If MIH is Wikipiere then the style of the edits has changed substantially. I am one of the editors with a fair amount of experience of WIkipiere (mostly bad, frequently frustrating) and I didn't suspect it from the edits. Now the checkuser evidence is strong but merits additional checks. If MIH is Wikipiere then I would say the evidence of the edits is that he has turned over a new leaf and has been no more or less disruptive than a whole range of editors on Irish and British issues. I also saw that a request had gone into Arbcom from WIkipiere for rehabilitation, so it might be an idea for someone to link those. --SnowdedTALK11:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, someone agrees with me that it's nearly impossible that my editing matches Wikipéire. Snowded has said my edits are "substantially" different, while the Checkuser says "likely". Something's not right here.MITH17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MITH, I came across this from the "Collaboration page". I'm trying to figure the sequence of events that led to your block. Why did Casliber make the request in the first instance, and using Kate's_tools I can't see any significant patterns. Only that you are likely to have connections with Ireland and Britain, as many editors do. Tfz14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what happened, it came out of the blue. No discussion, no questions, just indef block.MITH17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was confident this user was Wikipeire some time back ([7]), and as a user who perhaps had more contact with him/her than Snowded or others, I'm doubley confident if not totally convinced they are one and the same having looked at their contributions since. He protests his innocence in this way every time - users should already be hunting for his next puppet. --Jza84 | Talk 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What contributions are these? Yes you were the editor who accused me last time, and then admitted to a mistake. What is it this time, over two months later, that suddenly makes me a sock puppet?MITH17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little like "smoke and mirrors" to me. It's now gone from likely to confident, what comes after that, "doubly confident, if not totally convinced", sounds like a word game. The more I read of this, the more I doubt. Tfz16:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the check user or the blocking admin. My words are my own - don't mix them with others please. It's not a word game, it's my opinion. I haven't seen the check user evidence (I don't have access to it), but even at it's most liberal, the distruption is highly comparable. I thought this user was one-and-the-same without knowing his ip or location, so that it has since been discovered they are also the same, well, 2 + 2 = 4. --Jza84 | Talk 21:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been accused of being a sock a number of times, on occasion by socks I'm glad my flag on the "Collaboration page" got some attention. No lets see some light on the subject. I agree with the above editors comments, --Domer48'fenian'18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the total climbdown on the last occasion and apology, I find it unbelievable that the same admin makes the very same allegation. The burden of proof this time must be considerably higher than 'likely'. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--I didn't make the second allegation so please don't say so. I was totally uninvolved and have merely expressed my opinion. I didn't have the benefit of checkuser evidence (I do now), and expressed my concerns a few months ago based on contributions. I assumed good faith. Now it seems like a case of WP:SPADE. It's not my call to make, and there's no burden of proof for me to make either - but I stand by my opinion that this user is Wikipeire. Indeed, have you not wondered where he's been whilse MusicInTheHouse has been with us???????? --Jza84 | Talk 21:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, and I have withdrawn my hasty misreading of how the block came about, with apologies. In answer to the second point you raise, whether I had ever considered this editor to be Wikipeire, the answer is no, at least not until it was raised by you on the other occasion. Then I thought that issue had been definitively resolved by the apology on your part. And now its all up in the air again. I echo GoodDays comment below on socks generally eroding 'assumptions of good faith' etc. Still none the wiser if Music is a sock though. RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the case at SPI while clerking and blocked MusicInTheHouse based on the results of the check, coupled with the similar edit contributions. The checkuser who ran the check, Nishkid64, listed a few of the reasons why the accounts are connected. With most - if not all - checks there is private technical evidence that can link the accounts together that can not be revealed without endangering the privacy of others, so it's highly likely that there is more evidence beyond Nishkid64's stated evidence (Same ISP, general location and user agent) that appeared in the check. This is taken into consideration when the checkuser releases the result of the check. Icestorm815 • Talk02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⬅My own view of Wikipiere (and I know this was not shared by all) was that there was potential for a good editor despite the serial creation of socks. At one point I, ALison and others attempted to negotiate a way back in for him/her but were frustrated by shall we say "the dark side" of Wikipiere. The point I made above, which seems to have been missed is that if Music is WIkipiere, then the edit history indicates that s/he has, after a longish absence, turned over a new leaf and started to show that potential. If that is the case then the best advise I can give is that Music makes that point directly to Arbcom by email (with a full confession); any readmission would need conditions attached and if it helps I'm happy to be involved. It could be under a new supervised ID to avoid any need to public humiliation/identification. On the other hand if Music is not Wikipiere then an injustice has been done and we need a proper review, not just some opinions. --SnowdedTALK11:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This CU investigation was launched after Wikipeiré submitted a ban appeal to the Arbitration Committee. One of the Arbitrators suspected that MITH was in fact Wikipeiré. At SPI, I determined that it is likely that MITH = Wikipeiré, based on a number of technical similarities. As Icestorm815 noted, I can't go into too many specifics, but I was able to say that both editors came from the same general location and had the same ISP and user agent. I also looked for patterns in previous IPs/ISPs used by Wikipeiré socks and found similarities between the IPs used by these socks and MITH. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)12:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks to me like the evidence is not conclusive. Same ISP? Well, how big is the ISP? Same general location? Is this a city or village? Same user agent - well unless he's using some unusual combination, I'd assume that something like Google Chrome on WinXP or similar is pretty common. I'm not getting the impression that you've passed the acid test on this one, and an indef block on this basis is not justified. Would you pass a death sentence on this evidence? Would you convict to a jail term? Surely the burden of proof for an indef block has to be higher than this. I believe that there is a chance of MITH being a sock. But not enough for a block.... And this block is clearly not justified based just on the behaviour of MITH. --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this account is not another Wikipiere sock? then it's best to get that cleared up. PS: I 'hope' the account is innocent. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been available to comment all day, I've been busy. Where do I go from here? A lot of editors are agreeing with me that my contributions are beneficial and my behaviour doesn't match that of Wikipeire. I'm not sure what my ISP was while I was back in Ireland, but in all honesty there aren't that many too choose from and Dublin really isn't that big a place, but the admins seem to be ignoring that and are giving the answer of an indef block. But if the answer is a block, I wondering what is the question? This block just seems to be pure wiki bureaucracy and doesn't seem to have much of a purpose, yet I have to deal with the consequences of not being able to edit at the end of the day. No admin even with 'the evidence' they can't speak of, can truly say I am some sock puppet. Coupled with the fact that my contributions to Wikipedia during the relatively short period of me having an account here have been beneficial as per other editors here, then I am truly flummoxed to as the reason and purpose of this block. I am hoping a well balanced and neutral individual will come to a possible solution and way forward to this giant mess.MITH22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
