Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:26, 15 January 2017

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

UTRS appeal #17287

Ayyappancs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Jan 07, 2017 19:03:39

Message: Could I please request your input regarding this user? I have also emailed you

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@5 albert square: I commented at UTRS. It's the FIRST time I've ever done so. Please tell me if I did it correctly. Don't be shy about nit-picking. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You did it PERFECTLY from what I could see! Believe it or not it was the FIRST time I'd requested it!--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, congratulations to us!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Evlekis ...

... seems to have found a way around the range block:

1. 0 zero O naught (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Electrically minded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Check edits, edit summaries and general behaviour. - Tom | Thomas.W 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblock

You Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kenosplit/Archive blocked user:Kenosplit

While I haven't fully researched it, I'll be happy to stipulate that it was a valid block.

However, while we continue to insist that individuals closely associated with an organization should not be directly editing an article, we need some provision so that they can recommend changes, or identify errors so that other editors can investigate and make changes if appropriate.

In my opinion, the ideal situation is to point out our guideline that they should edit the article talk page and use the edit request feature. However, they cannot do that if blocked.

I think it would be reasonable to unblock this user, coupled with the caveat that there edit should not directly be to the article but should only be to the article talk page and relevant dispute resolution pages.

We need to provide some mechanism so that individuals can provide such feedback to us, while they are currently reaching out to us through OTRS, you may be aware that OTRS is badly backlogged and is not the proper venue for back-and-forth discussions.

I will be happy to carry out the unblock and make sure the user understands the conditions that I wanted to reach out to you to see if you had any objections.

(As an aside, it occurs to me that we ought to consider creating functionality in which COI editors are physically unable to edit article pages but can edit other pages pages. There might be enough situations of this type to warrant such a special class of editors, although this is not the right time to have that larger discussion.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The normal, non-socking scenario is one account that edits an article directly despite their obvious COI. We counsel that editor to use the Talk page rather than edit the article. Sometimes we're successful, often we're not, in which case the user may end up being blocked. Here we had three different accounts all going at it at the same time. Not only that, they claimed in their July unblock request that there were only two accounts, which means they weren't being honest. I have no use for this kind of editing, and Misplaced Pages's articles will survive without their "feedback".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't view our position as acceptable. If your position is consistent with policy, we need to revisit policy. I fully understand and support the view that we can prohibit COI editors from directly editing an article. I would also say that the mere fact that Misplaced Pages chooses to write an article about a subject does not give the subject any particular influence over the content of the article, but I think basic fairness requires that we provide a reasonable venue for the subject to share information which ought to be considered by editors of the article. While they technically have some venue — they can write an email to OTRSe — I trust you are aware that the system is badly backlogged. Not coincidentally, this request is one of dozens that slipped through the cracks and has been ignored for months. I'm trying to work on the backlog, but I can't in good conscience tell someone that they should write to us if they see a problem with an article and somebody might get back to them, and it might take a year or more. I am fully on board with the need to do a better job at OTRS, but the solution to OTRS problems isn't helped by dumping more things on OTRS.

With respect, the issue isn't whether Misplaced Pages wil survive, but whether the subjects of article without reasonable recourse for addressing problems will "survive".

If you had been the subject of an article in Misplaced Pages, and due to some misunderstandings of policy found yourself blocked, would you consider it acceptable that the only way to request fixes to the article is through a process that might literally take years? We need to do better. I hope you will reconsider.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon page

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate venue to address this, but I think there's someone IP hopping on the Deepwater Horizon film page. Same MO to their edits, same wording, etc. Their only activity on that page is performing incorrect reversions (adding non-relevant performers without pages of their own and who did not appear in the end credits billing; randomly adding performers in the infobox who do not belong there; erasing actual performers with billing from the cast list, etc.) without providing any justification for it. Bice24 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi. Not a fan of the ygm template, so in prose: have sent an email seeking a second opinion, if you have a moment. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Depending on how you e-mail me, the system notifies me anyway, so you don't have to leave anything on my Talk page. I just woke up, so give me a bit of time to review the issue. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism at Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 2017

Greetings User: Bbb23 ! I hope you are well. I saw that you are an admin on this wiki so I thought that it is better to inform you about a certain user who keeps on vandalising this wiki. A user by name Tender Nuke keeps on removing the sourced content in above article such as opinion polls and other relevant content. He removed the warnings on his talk page also atleast two times. He pretends to be a new user. Can you take any action? Thanks in advance. Terabar (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #17311

Wackslas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Jan 11, 2017 20:20:38

Message: null

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, though you were not the last blocking Admin I am seeking your input since this was a CU block. 6 months have passed since the last block action. Are you happy with them accepting the SO and going to the Community or should it be deferred for a further 6 months? I am consulting also HighInBC. Just Chilling (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: It may take me a little time to respond because I have to stretch my poor brain back quite a ways. As you probably already know, HighInBC isn't on-wiki much anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

HighInBC has kindly drawn my attention to the previous appeal. Just Chilling (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: The user has a very checkered past, starting when he was indefinitely blocked in 2014 for vandalism. Then he was given a second chance a few months later. Then I CU-blocked him for sock puppetry in October 2015, followed by Talk page revocation because of his attitude. He lied to HighInBC in July 2016, which caused the second of two unblock discussions at AN. Now he claims he's reformed. It's a real struggle to believe anything he says based on this history, so I oppose an unblock. Maybe if significantly more time than the standard offer period elapses (six months from now?), I would feel a bit more sympathetic, but no promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Just Chilling (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi! Hope your holidays went well.

Here's a sort of knotty question for you: an editor, X, is a non-notable artist (there are no Ghits except a small number to sites connected directly to him). Over the years, X's name has been inserted into numerous art-related Misplaced Pages articles, sometimes directly in the article, sometimes in a footnote. All the insertions are completely unsourced (what sometimes seems like a source is actually merely a link to an image of a specific artwork). For the most part, the insertions have been done via IP edits. According to his user page bio, X grew up elsewhere in the US, but now lives in New York City, and all the latest insertions (and reversions of deletions of the unsourced material) has been done by IPs of the 172xx range, which are NYC-based.

Editor X's user page is nothing but a long bio and promo for his work, so I sent it to MfD, but there's been very little response there.

If I filed an SPI on Editor X, I would be listing only IPs, because I have no evidence that he has used another account name, but certainly the use of IPs to insert one's own name into articles in a promotional way is a violation of the "avoiding scrutiny" part of the sockpuppetry policy. However, as there are only IPs to connect with X, no CU will make that connection publicly because of en:WP policy.

This would be a dead issue, since I've removed all unsourced mention of the non-notable article from wherever I've found it, and the user page - eh, it could stay or go, it wouldn't matter all that much. But as recently as 5 days ago, an 172xx IP added X's name to a list of non-graduate alumni from a certain prestigious university, on the basis that he attended summer school there. This tells me that X is not planning on stopping using Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes, despite having WP:PROMO and WP:Sockpuppetry point out to him.

(Incidentally, although I got involved only recently, the problem was raised as an issue 13 years ago as well, and nothing was done at that time.)

So, what would you recommend I do? Simply keep looking for unsourced insertions of this non-notable artist's name and deleting them, filing an SPI, get someone to write an edit filter for his name, or what? I really am not sure what to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I suppose I would file the SPI and hope that someone will take an interest and find the behavior clear and disruptive enough to merit blocks, including a block of the named account. Otherwise, you're put in the uncomfortable position of monitoring and correcting the problem for an indeterminate amount of time - not that you're obliged to do so, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll think that over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Eddtoro642

Greetings. The sockmaster has reacted rather badly to his indef-block on his talk page. Do you believe a revocation of user-talk privileges is warranted? Thanks for all you do. --Finngall 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: The last thing he did was blank the page, which he is entitled to do. Unless he's disruptive again, I don't think revoking Talk page access is needed. Thanks, though, for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oneshot

Can you please block Oneshot's latest IP, which he is using to troll me yet again, or at least protect Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to stop the IP's edit warring?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

False accusation. My interest is in the article, not with this disruptive combative editor. I have no beef with him. FYI this editor is about to be indeffed topic banned in this active AE :. One of the charges being made against this longtime editor (who should know better by now than to engage in this behavior) is abusing process to advance edit warring, harassing other users with wikihounding and stalking behavior, and being generally combative (like he is doing now). If you doubt the seriousness of any this, simply review one of many neutral admin's current opinion of this editor's behavior: . My advice would be to NOT allow yourself to be dragged into his drama, since he being accused of using various sneaky tactics (like this complaint) to distract from his political soapboxing and wiki:battlegrounding against other users. Just a friendly heads up. For my part, sorry if any of this represents a waste of your time.TTFN.73.95.139.127 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/LikeGaga

The style of interaction to make me think the person is indeffed Brexx. If not, the person is a persistent genre warrior and a long-term abuser. 115.164.53.243 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene

Bbb23 Has a check actually been done to check if the user Duqsene is a sock, like an IP check? Or are you just going by 'lack of evidence'?Resourcer1 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Puhleec/Archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23 It states, 'lack of evidence' and that's why the case was closed?... Resourcer1 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

My finding was  Unrelated. The clerk made an independent finding that there was a lack of evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

HarveyCarter sock?

User:Gna,xd - Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Confirmed + Cyrusqui (talk · contribs · count) and PaddyCarstairs (talk · contribs · count). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock blocks

I've just posted at WP:ANI#Inappropriate SPI blocks regarding an SPI closure and blocks you made. Sorry for not bringing it up with you first; I originally framed this as an unblock request and it skipped my mind to check with the blocking admin. Anyway, there's also a wider issue I'm hoping could be addressed, which I've stated there. Thanks for understanding. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The thread's been closed, so I'd like to continue enquiry with you here. The original post's copied below:

Hi. You blocked User:Smile228 and User:Wassanee for sockpuppetry raised in an SPI, but no wrongdoing seems to have taken place. Smile228's edits take place after Wassanee's ceased, and it's possible that they may have simply lost access to the older account. Even if this weren't the case, I think good faith should have been assumed and the offenders warned instead of outright blocked, as these are clearly not vandalism or block-evading accounts. Please reconsider the blocks. I'm posting this independently of the blocked users.

(I previously raised this as an unblock request, which was denied due to not being made by the blocked user, and subsequently posted at ANI, which was closed for being the wrong venue. Apologies for not bringing it here first; it skipped my mind after the first denial.) --Paul_012 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Outrageous! I vehemently object to your tagging that Racist troll account TheTimesTheyAreAChanging with "Please see SPI: Kingshowman" Your investigation clearly revealed NO CONNECTION between that account and mine and you have smeared my good name!

What the fuck, man? I tried to save you the time of your checkuser by pointing out how illogical the original nomination was-- that user was actually voicing the exact opposite opinion of mine in the original thread and was going on and on about how reliable the Russia propaganda rag RT is, and how the MI6 report can't be trusted... I told Favonian and others as you were checkusering that you were wasting your time with it. And now, on your fishing expedition, you find it is conencted to some other racist troll account with some Islamophobic, racist, bigoted, anti-Obama hate speech spread on his page, and YOU DARE write "Please see SPI: Kingshowman"? I will bring you to Arbcom over this if you DO NOT REMOVE THE MISLEADING ASSOCIATION of that account with mine, immediately. Your investigation revealed NO CONNECTION, and you post that outrageously misleading "please see" in his block log? If you want to go to arbitration over this, bring it in. You will not drag my name through the mud with this blood libel and get away with it, I promise you that. I thought you were better than this. ---Kingshowman