Misplaced Pages

Suspected SockPuppetry

How was the matter decided? Arcayne 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked because the user has been somewhat disruptive on the Nancy Reagan article, and I just reported him for 3RR. Essentially, he's trying to add unsources, non-reliable material to a living person's article. I and others have been reverting the edits, as per BLP. Talk on the Discussion page has been ignored. Here's a brief history of the article's edits, showing the 3RR. Feel free to come and visit. We'll have tea and biscuits a-waiting. :) Arcayne 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. :) Arcayne 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

El_chulito

You have got to be kidding with this right? How on earth can you state that this editors actions is not likely to be sockpuppetry - I have waited over two weeks for some action to be taken and then you just brush it aside - this type of lazy behaviour is driving away good editors and leaving puppeters carte blanche to continue their abuse. This editor and his socks have been abusing the AfD process - who on earth can you say after looking at this edit "history" that this guy is not a sock - this AfD was never listed properly and was only ever seen by people that would follow other editors edit history - oh I cant be bothered explaining it anymore - this a joke!

Sometime I just feel like jacking wiki in when I come across the likes of this! Can you not look at this again because it is bloody driving me crazy. two weeks and you just sweep it under the carpet - well done!--SameBatTime 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"but none are conclusive" - he made an edit when he forgot that he wasnt signed in and this left his IP, he then immediately signed over it with his new user name - the IP trace that he left was identical as previous IP that he used under El Chuilto! what more do you need! to say I am furious would be a massive understatement!--SameBatTime 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsure

I received this message, coming from this user (identified through the history). As you can see, the user has had some issues (I responded to the user page; for some reason, I was unable to respond to thir talk page). The user blanked my page here, but User:Leebo, a new admin, undid it.
While I am not typically a paranoid soul, I do find it more than a bit coincidental that I encounter the same sorts of activity (lack of signed posts in some odd and pointless attempt to try and conceal the identity) from this user, who I reported for 3RR in the Nancy Reagan article. Could they be the same person? Looking at the times the changes were made to my User Talk page and messages left, did the User's block expire before or after the messages were left? Not that it would really matter, as this appears to be yet another sockpuppet of the same user.
I would like to get some experienced advice on this... Arcayne 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

please review

hi seraphim

please review your recent block of me. i don't think i violated 3rr or blp (more on my talk page)

thanks 71.112.7.212 05:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't agree with you about ATT. if you could point out the particular section maybe we could come to an understanding.

• its not original research
• its a secondary source
• it isn't self-published
• it does have editorial oversight
• the book has footnotes and has been around so long it is no longer exceptional. even the new york times called it encyclopedic.

also what about the 3rr? did you review this?

71.112.7.212 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

well we might need an rfc about the book. i think it is ok because of read ATT and i don't see what part it violates. ATT talks all about editorial oversight, which this book had. i guess you are implying that newspapers and magazines have more editorial oversight than i book; i don't know if this is true, from a can-they-sue-us point of view it certainly isn't logical. a publisher of a book can be sued just as easily as a newspaper publisher. anyway, this subtlety isn't mentioned in ATT so i don't see how you can block me for it. if there's something in ATT that says books aren't considered reliable sources i might understand.

the thing about this book is that, from what i've read, it is true. it's not a conspiracy theory, it's just unusual that someone would put together a book about it. you have to find someone with a lot of indiscretions that the public might be interested in. if someone wrote a book about john mccain's affairs it wouldn't sell all that many copies.

also, sorry to keep bugging you about this, but could you please look into the specifics of the 3rr? i don't think i broke the 3rr rule; take a look at the diffs. i was incorrectly blocked by "nihonjoe" for "vandalism" earlier and now this block makes me look like someone who is blocked frequently. 71.112.7.212 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, we're making progress. since i didn't break 3rr, is there a way to get this removed from my record? and could you caution "arcayne" about filing false report? they really disrupt wikipedia. about the blp, no one has shown my how adding info about nancy reagan from a published biography violates BLP. nancy reagan's supporters surely don't like it, but that doesn't make it a violation of BLP. george bush's supporters don't like people mentioning all his indiscretinos but they show up. also, i am not this "rbaish" user, and i think you'll see there was no evidence for it. rbaish is into small-scale vandalism and the confederate flag, neither are my style. if you wanted to run a test you could block him and i could show you i could still edit freely. 71.112.7.212 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

there was no 3rr, so how is blocking with summary that says there was a 3rr valid? here's what you could do, block me for 5 mins, then quickly unblock saying that you were incorrect. then we can put this all behind us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

can you do the miniblock/unblock i described above (just say "previous two blocks incorrect")? people rarely look deeply into things, they just click on "block log" and assume every block is correct. its called the just-world phenomenon.

cmon, seriph. you blocked me incorrectly. i don't know if you just didn't click on the diffs or what, but i don't want this to remain in my block log without a notation, and i think the editor that placed the report should be warned. his misleading 3rr report that tricked you into blocking me, triggering this whole dialogue. the blp portion is also in the wrong, my citations were excellent and "encyclopedic". the block and unblock will take you all of 15 seconds, what would be wrong with that?

a user is now taunting me for "breaking 3rr". you, he, and i know it isnt true, but if you made a notation in my block log the rest of the world will know it too. i don't think ths is an unreasonable request. you goofed up, no big deal. if you just leave a note saying so in the block log you'll undo the damage.

Decision on Williams Record

Can you give me some insight on your decision to merge and redirect Williams Record? Also, what are the rules on recreating this at some point? The Williams College page is getting way to big. I may help out to break it up. Splitting out the Record page would be one of the first things that I would do as a part of that. David.Kane 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi Seraph. You just removed 65.19.77.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) from AIV, because he asked to be blocked. However, the user did vandalize after last warning just recently, and therefore (as I understand) should be blocked. Is there a reason why you removed him that I don't know of, or did you not notice that he had vandalized after last warning? Anyways, you have more experience with these things, so you lead, I follow. Thanks! · AO 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for clearing that up. · AO 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Jalabi99

The correct forum for complaints about the closure of a deletion debate is WP:DRV. Per the talk page I resent the personalisation of a routine administrative issue, and request closure of the "case". Thank you for your time. --kingboyk 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should send him a copy of the deleted text? Ordinarily I am happy to do this, even where I wasn't the deleting admin; in this case I doubted the usefulness of the article (it's just a list) and suspected it would merely be used to recreate. (Of course I didn't say that due to WP:AGF, but that was my thought process). --kingboyk 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Association of members' advocates

No problem. If it isn't inactive then the proposal to delete was ill-conceived. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you saw my comments at MFD about this not being planned or retaliatory. I didn't plan this upheaval (and if I was capable of organising such uprisings I'd probably have something better to do than spend my time here :)). No hard feelings I hope. --kingboyk 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Around the Rings Update

Hi, the last notice I had from you was a question asking if I'd worked on the posting for Around the Rings. I asked you where to find it and then didn't get a response. Did my note get lost in the shuffle? I still don't see it posted so could you tell me what I should do? --Janicelmcdonald 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hullo

In response to your statement on 3rr page, Yes I saw and filed ssp. Even despite YLH there is still 3rr violation question (anonymous and T-Leigh are self-admittedly the same person as established by their posts on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gandhi's_views_on_race ). Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Teabing-Leigh for further corroboration. I am new so don't know much abt doing these things and would be happy if you could guide me. Kjartan8 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for attending to this matter. Kjartan8 08:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Teabing-Leigh has made further reverts as teabing-leigh, clearly violating 3rr as this one handle (that's four reverts involved in removing my tags) Kjartan8 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

EN Mediation

Thanks for getting this started. I would just like to request that since next week is Holy Week, and the Philippines traditionally shuts down during this entire time, can we please postpone the start of the official mediation action until the week of April 9? Thelma Bowlen 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3rr*2

I'm leaving radiant/nescott to you. Can I ask you to look at my report of UBeR, please? William M. Connolley 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think given William M. Connolley's response to me here we know how this would have turned out if you hadn't intervened. This isn't Radiant! first 3RR vio Seraphimblade. He got away with it before on this same "technicality" logic. (→Netscott) 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be. I am sorry if you take offense, but I do believe a block there would've been punitive rather than preventative, especially given that a 3O was sought before the report was made. Seraphimblade 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the 3O... the question is did he wait for the thrid opinion or not? Obviously he didn't... there is prevention in blocking. The user learns to not edit in such a manner and thus such editing is prevented in the future. I'm not taking offense but frankly this strikes of a two tiered admin/non-admin hierarchy... you've got to admit that save for the fact that Radiant!'s an admin he'd be blocked right now, no? (→Netscott) 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! The same rules apply to anyone, admin or no, and I've certainly declined to take action on very technical violations with non-admins as well. (And blocked one admin, when the intent to revert-war was very clear.) If there wasn't some amount of judgment involved, we could put 3RRBot up for RfA. But non-admins and users receive the same. Seraphimblade 13:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well please do know that this is not a fair excercise per the 3RR policy. It is true that further reverting will not occur but it is plainly obvious that this is due to an editor gaming the system. (→Netscott) 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You know I can't say that I blame you for your action (or lack thereof rather), all things considered. (→Netscott) 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In case you were wondering here are the other vios (one I actually defended him on) 3RR vio 2, 3RR vio 1. (→Netscott) 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember who all !voted in my RfA, and I really don't appreciate your implication there. Seraphimblade 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on Seraphimblade, you can't blame me... this is third Vio that he's skipping out on. Where is the equality? (→Netscott) 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken block?

You recently blocked Miaers (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. However, when I investigated, it looked to me like this was a second block for an offence he was already blocked for. It seems that the user has made no edits since initially blocked. He's requesting a block review. Could you check it out and consider unblocking? Thanks. --Yamla 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but PaddyM reported Miaers for breaking 3RR rule after the incident happened on the 22nd. As soon as Miaers came off of block, the immediately reported PaddyM for the very same edit war. I'm wondering that if PaddyM needed to be blocked for 24 hours, it should have been when the incident took place. Madmaxmarchhare 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.112.7.212

This User has removed some comments from your Talk page left by other editors. Despite being told repeatedly that they are not allowed to do so, they continue to do so. They have also removed repeated warnings on their page, engaged in edit warring on other pages (in my case, Afro), is contentious, and shows no ability for "growth" as a Wikipedian (especially since they just removed another editors comment on your Talk page, which is not allowed). That's my experience - just letting you know. --David Shankbone 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by blocked user Yahya01

You blocked Yahya01 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, but he is evading his block via anonymous reverts such as this. I request you to look into this. Thanks. --Ragib 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yahya01

Hi - just wanted to let you know that I've extended user:Yahya01's block to 96 hours, taking into account his multiple anti-Sunni personal attacks against editors and in general. Rama's arrow 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, Seraphimblade

Thank you for letting me know about the AN/I report a couple of days ago. Also I've been meaning to thank you for your page protection ruling at Attribution/Poll a few days ago when I put in a 3RR report. That ruling taught me some things about the difference between normal wikiediting and editwarring, and had a calming effect on me. Re the AN/I report: I seem to have missed your comment the first time I read it. When I re-read it I had a hard time believing that the timestamp on your signature came before mine. Apparently I saw yours as just a contributory comment and not a definitive answer. --Coppertwig 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)