Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 4 June 2008

This page is currently protected from editing. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. You may request an edit to this page, or ask for it to be unprotected.

Appealing editing restriction under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hi. Since you were the one to block me, I decided its only fair to address this to yourself. I would like to appeal my placement under these restrictions. Following repeated conflicts with several editors, including being on an incivility warning, and in an ANI case now, it has become apparent (thanks to User:Woody) that my problems are largely confined to the issue of source verifiability, and can all be resolved via the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or when the newly proposed Sourcing Adjudication Board may come online. With this in mind, would you be able to suggest the process, if one exits, of appealing my placement on this editing restriction, and how to proceed. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GRP

I noticed you blocked some accounts saying they related to GRP...I found this. You might want to CU it.¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. No other accounts on that IP though. Thatcher 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design editors rfar thread

Not sure your comment qualifies as a clerk note; would you consider moving it to a proper statement? Being picky, I know, but it's important to recognise what hat you're wearing when commenting (IMO, at least). Anthøny 23:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's content-neutral advice on filing an effective case. It could apply equally well to any case, for the "prosecution" or "defense". Thatcher 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Impression

I am afraid you are mistaken in your assertation. I am not the person making "throw away vandal accounts". The IP range that I usually use is a corporate one. There are other people in my department who have created vandal accounts. I have spoken to them regarding the issue and asked them to cease doing so. Simonm223 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• If true, that is a good thing, and hopefully you won't get caught in any more autoblocks. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to discriminate between good editors and bad editors on shared corporate IPs, and a good editor making vandal accounts for recreation looks very much the same as a good editor who happens to have a bored co-worker. Thatcher 15:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Understood. In this case it is the later unfortunately there is no realistic way to prove this to you. Hopefully I will have availed upon them to cease and there won't be another instance. Simonm223 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greier

Hey Thatcher. I'm pretty convinced based on the behavioral evidence that these two users are the same person. Do you think I can simply block based on the CU result? I know it's not "confirmed", but "likely" seems good enough to me. Khoikhoi 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if you were ready to block anyway, and now you know it is not an exact IP match (what would be after 2 years?) but is in the same city and ISP, it seems reasonable to me. Thatcher 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. I'll go ahead and block. Khoikhoi 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Paknur

Hello Thatcher. I CUed this guy on the suspicion that he was the still-banned Nadirali (talk · contribs). However, it wasn't him, but another user whose ban has now expired, except he is now running multiple socks on the same IP. But because I ended up reverting a person who wasn't banned but accidentally came across other socks, can you please take a look for independent 3rd party confirmation? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's absolutely obvious. Betacommand's user compare tool shows numerous edits to the same articles, and this is a recreation of similar behavior. (On the other hand, Boatrights (talk · contribs) is another banned user Hkelkar.) What do you want to do about it? Thatcher 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well since I reverted the guy under the assumption that he was banned, and he isn't, I just figured that I should ask someone else to confirm it lest I be accused of framing someone I was reverting. I just need you to list the exact guys on that IP- there is one guy who's ban has expired and a whole stack of socks and I'll ask someone else to block it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed that Paknur is Siddiqui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was banned for one year on 4 March 2007 as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. He is currently using sockpuppet accounts:

1. Nawabshahi (talk · contribs)
2. Paknur (talk · contribs)
3. Mirza Barlas (talk · contribs)
4. Misaq Rabab (talk · contribs)

--Thatcher 10:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Siddiqui's block has expired. Still The accounts were used abusively e.g. reverted to each other on Pakistan Studies. I have blocked Paknur for one month (it seems to be the main account nowdays) and the rest permanently. I propose to Community Ban the user if one more sockpuppeting found Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Thank you for handling that RFCU I filed. Just a one question. How long should be the second block for that very same crime? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Privacy

I'm probably missing something very simple here, but how do I e-mail you? -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, you should be able to use the "Email this user" link that is on the side bar of every user's user and talk page. You can also do it directly at thatcher131 at gmail dot com. Thatcher 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) You can just click here - Alison 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (Does special/emailuser work if the other user has not specified an email address?) Thatcher 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Misplaced Pages:Emailing users, the answer is nope. There would be no means of reply, for one ... - Alison 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/207.189.99.134

You found the two users to be the same, but did you determine if they are the same as the IP address? That IP contributed again to the article, still injecting their POV. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GRP

... is back at the Chicago Public Library right now making new socks. Can you quick look at 64.107.0.0/22 and 66.99.0.0/22 (I'll make a formal CU request if you would rather). I suspect this is one, but I think he might have made a bunch before I shut down the ranges again. Thanks for your help, Antandrus (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• stand by... Thatcher 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • By the time you blocked the IPs he had only made a few IP edits and has not created any new accounts. Thatcher 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Antandrus (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hdayjr and his socks

Hello, Thatcher,

I was just wondering, since the list has vastly increased since when I first filed it, to see if any of the users listed matched the large range of IPs now present. As I have not really seen any recent activity, the list as not really expanded as of late, but the ranges which he uses are becoming quite clear. Here is said page: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr. Thankyou for your time no matter what you decide to do.— Dædαlus / Improve\ 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• You can list the names as updates to the checkuser case if you want confirmation, your list is in alpha order rather than date so I don;t know which are recent enough to be worth checking. There's probably not much point in checking IPs unless its a current 3RR issue or something. You pretty much know where he lives, I think, so IPs from there that walk and talk like him can be blocked pretty easily. Thatcher 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The list is sortable now. Just letting you know.— Dædαlus / Improve\ 06:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy /Evidence

Is there some way to see a scrubbed version of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence as a normal user? Should I be asking someone else about this? Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I didn't see that when it happened. Scrubbing it would have to be a manual job and I don't even know what was allegedly revealed. You might the clerk listed as handling the case if he has the time to make a scrubbed version; otherwise ask arbcom or Dmcdevit I guess. Thatcher 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed there's a listed clerk. Gnixon (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)