User talk:Jonny-mt/Archive 2

Schweizer 434
Thanks for nominating a redirect page for deletion! I thought I had clicked on the "rediect" link, but I made a mistake, and didn't double check it. I was back within five minutes, and my attempt to correct it caused an edit conflict. Imagine my surprise to find the page had already been deleted. I'm really trying to assume good faith, but really, you didn't realize this was supposed to be a redirect? What did you think the edit summary, "Created redirect page" meant? You did bother to read it before nominating the page, right? I certainly hope I don't end up having to take a redirct page to deletion review - that would be a complete waste of time that could have easily been voided had two people not acted so hastily. Please, the next time you come across something like that, stop a minute and think things through. It will save other editors a lot of trouble in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi BillCJ,


 * My apologies for the tagging, but to be honest I did not recognize it as a redirect page. I'm usually pretty good about that (      etc.), but for whatever reason--probably my perfect lack of knowledge in that area--I thought that the page was referring to some online user somewhere who was just trying to put his name on Wikipedia.  I waited for a minute or two to see if it would be expanded any further, and when it wasn't I tagged it for speedy deletion.  Since virtually of my CSD tags are on new articles, there is no history to speak of and so I tend not to review it unless I have a specific reason (e.g. I review spam articles for username violations, as the creators often register under their company name and can be tenacious about removing valid tags).


 * With regard to your comment about slowing down, the fact is that I actively try and keep up a fairly quick pace when doing newpage patrol, as the vast majority of CSD candidates are created by brand-new users who prone to simply creating their article and logging off. If you can catch them when they're still online, they have a chance to defend their work and may be able to improve it to the point where it is saved--if not, the possibility of them being able to help by the time the article is deleted (as someone else will almost certainly tag it if I don't) is near zero.  That being said, once the article is tagged I can generally count on at least a 12 to 15 minute turnaround time between tagging and deletion for non-spam/attack/copyvio articles, so I have to say I'm as surprised as you that your redirect was deleted so quickly.  I see, though, that you've taken it up with @pple, and I'm glad that issue has been resolved.


 * So my apologies again for the mistaken tagging of your redirect, although I must admit that I'm a little confused as to why you would want to take the issue to DRV and a little hurt that my tagging made you struggle to maintain AGF. I assure you I did not mean any harm by it, and I hope my explanation has restored a little bit of your faith in me and the CSD process.  I'll be more careful in watching for similar cases in the future. -- jonny - m  t  11:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies accepted. Oh, my comment on DRV meant that if the redirect was deleted again because I simply recreated the page without going to DRV first, then I would have to go thre to get the page restored. Sorry for the confusion on that point - it was very late for me, and I admit I took this a litte too seriously than I should have. Sorry! - BillCJ (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--Michael Greiner 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Buzzmaster
Let me ask you this: What if the topic was changed from Buzzmaster "the person" to The Morning Buzz? (This is the actual and real chat show that airs 5 days a week 10-5pm est on espn.com.) And within this page we can refer to Buzz. Just trying to figure out ways to get this done. Txthunder (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WQA
Yeah, go ahead and close it. Thanks for your input. I guess in the end there isn't much I could do, and it didn't merit an RfC since I was also at fault. Thanks for your efforts! AKFrost (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Buzzmaster/SportsNation
Well, in a way I "rallied the troops". I didn't mean for this to happen. --HPJoker (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that had its start elsewhere.... -- jonny - m t  16:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disapprove of it being a stub, but thanks for removing that spam. It shouldn't be a stub through. --HPJoker (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the trimming down to a stub was just to remove what I saw as needing immediate attention. Looking back through the history of the article, I noticed that there is information on other programming as well--I haven't done my homework (so I don't know what's true and what's not), so feel free to add anything back in that you like (I think this old version is probably the most helpful).


 * As for the stub designation, the article both as it currently stands and as it appeared in the old version I linked above is unreferenced and lacks a firm establishment of notability. I think these problems can be corrected, which is why I've given it the stub designation, indicating it is a work in progress and notifying other editors who browse Category:Internet stubs that it can be expanded.  The internet-stub tag is not a value judgement or evaluation--it's simply a tool that can be used to foster improvement. -- jonny - m  t  02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pont Marie, rename
Thanks for moving my article from Pont marie to Pont Marie within, like, 5 seconds of my creating the page....that's so awesome! Appreciate it. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm glad to help out? (To be honest, it's kind of hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not :P) -- jonny - m t  16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm being honest...I realised I'd made a mistake and went to move the page but by the time I could click on it, the page had already been moved. I thought it was pretty neat that it had been accomplished so quickly, is all. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, good stuff, then! Sorry about that--I've had a couple of people snap at me for doing newpage patrol too quickly, and so I've made an effort to slow down on all but the most noncontroversial stuff to avoid stepping on toes.  So in your case, I'm extra glad to be of service! -- jonny - m  t  17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor review/jonny-mt
Hi jonny, after a long wait, you've finally been reviewed :) delldot   talk  13:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!
To avoid rambling on, I'd just like to have your input on this matter;. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share?  05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding attempt on speedy deletion
Dear Jonny

I appreciate your help and your advice, so I'll just add some lines in that article. I will definitely add more information after I am done with my college. haha. RasAlmond (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see I caught you while you were online. Good luck (with both school and the article)! -- jonny - m  t  07:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi! Thanks for the notice, but I have to respectfully disagree. I've seen these sorts of cookie-cutter, near-contentless articles come from other users and few ever get expanded or cleaned up. It's little more than a couple of declarative sentences and a placeholder as are all of this user's contributions thus far. It's up to the original author, not subsequent authors, to follow the guidelines for a minimum stub in my opinion. I hope the user proves me wrong and takes the time to expand these, but I have to say that I doubt it based on my experience. Anyway, I'm off to stare at the backs of my eyelids for the next few hours. Thanks again for the notice and thanks for being polite about it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you need to remember that the purpose of a new article is simply to create a starting point that other users can then build on, and you'd be surprised what qualifies as a stub. As for your doubts about further expansion, one only has to look at Category:Stubs to see that you're not wrong...but at the same time, Wikipedia has no deadline, so I'd argue that a little information is better than none at all provided it meets our basic requirements.


 * At any rate, even a quick look through the essay I linked will help improve your tagging. Incidentally, when informing new users that you've tagged their page for deletion, it might help to take a gentler tone--remember that we were all newbies once.  Thanks! -- jonny - m  t  09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I don't think I took a less-than-gentle tone. Wasn't my intention to bite at all. Sorry if it came off that way. I do agree that a little info is better than none, but these had too little info (the subject is a building, it's in Long Beach and on the National Register) and simply directed the reader to the external link. FWIW, the other articles were deleted under A1, so I guess it's a matter of interpretation. :) Anyway, life goes on.  See you 'round the wiki!  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of speedy deletion
I do not appreciate your poorly informed comments on my talk page, which violate WP:AGF. I do not believe that any of the articles I proposed for speedy deletion contain any genuine assertions of importance -- for example, in Cole Carpenter, the closest thing to such an assertion is his claim to have been an extra in "A Chorus Line," the sort of claim that has been insufficient to protect any number of articles regarding would-be actors from speedy deletion. Your assumption that I am not familiar with speedy deletion criteria is incorrect, and reflects your failure to assume good faith. I have nominated quite a few other pornography-related advertisements disguised as articles for speedy deletion, and a clear majority of those nominations were successful. Yesterday's set of nominations was not particularly large in that context. I seem to have attracted the attention of a few users who insist that virtually any female sex worker with breast implants deserves wider exposure, including Wikipedia. You ought to devote more of your efforts to assuring that Wikipedia is not riddled with notability guideline-violating pornspam than inappropriately criticizing editors who are trying to remove it. As for "civility," since it's apparently appropriate for one potty-mouthed editor to call me a "dipshit" and more without any real sanction, I hardly think my comments crossed any lines. VivianDarkbloom (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree that some of these articles need to go, and my comments made that clear. In the case you cited above, the claim to importance is present in the statement that he was a pornographic actor--this is separate from the question of notability, which I believe he fails (as evident in my WP:PROD nomination).  If you read through my comments, you'll note that I was not warning you on the removal of these articles but rather the way you were going about it.


 * As for your concerns about WP:AGF, my advice was intended to provide help and illustrate how your actions are being perceived by third parties. Assuming (in my case, based on your edit count and actions) that someone is unfamiliar with a given policy is quite different from assuming they are trying to harm the project; you might want to have a read through WP:AAGF on that point.  As for your concerns about incivility from other editors, you are perfectly free to bring the issue up at WP:DR or warn the user yourself in a civil manner. -- jonny - m  t  01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template: User RochesterNY
Thanks Jonny, I realized this directly after I submitted it, and tried to move it but you already did so, haha. I moved it to Template:User Rochester, New York, which is more appropriate and convention. However, I will be requesting that Template:User Rochester be moved so that this new template can be there. It's more appropriate. But thanks for your help. --Dan Leveille TALK 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
...for the *. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hard work! -- jonny - m t  05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben Eine
I changed my !vote as well when I saw that reference. Interesting what turns up when someone does an AfD! SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Ho
Thanks for explaining the notability guideline. I've moved your helpful comments to the article talk page in case this ever comes up again. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I appreciate it! -- jonny - m t  04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly an error on my end. Thanks for the correction. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed
Fixed the spiderman image.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sébé Allah Y'é
Thanks for the tag adding. Please don't let it delete. Is there a way to correct my added sentences to this article? D@rk talk 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is indeed. Take a look at WP:MUSIC, specifically the section on albums and songs.  I don't think the article would get deleted per se, but you need to indicate that it is notable by itself or it runs the risk of being redirected to the artist's article. -- jonny - m  t  09:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, just dropping by to say thanks for the barn star! Melesse (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your message on my talk page.
Hi there! Thanks for your suggestion and for your help. If you need help, you can ask me too. Well, I'll probably take a Wikibreak. You can send me an e-mail if you need something. D@rk talk 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI...
Thought I would stop by and tell you that you can look forward to a clutter-free talk page. Thanks again for all your hard work! -- jonny - m t  08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I did not know that option was available. Thanks sooo much, I'm always a little disappointed when I get messages and it's just the bot. Thanks again! Melesse (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Aww, two smiles in less than a week! I'm totally wiki-loved :)  Incidentally, I took the liberty of adding you here as well; I imagine that talking to the operators of any other similar bots should probably take care of those notices as well. -- jonny - m  t  04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mahana Beach

 * Wow, that was fast! Right on; thanks! -- jonny - m  t  01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you still looking for a coach?
I noticed your name over on the admin coach request list.

Do you have a coach yet?

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's impressive timing. To be perfectly honest, I put in a request to another coach who seems to share an interest in similar adminning areas a few days ago and literally just got accepted.  Thank you for the offer, though; I really appreciate it! -- jonny - m  t  02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl
check Special:Contributions/Haha169 looks like it got moved to archive. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah; thanks for the heads-up. I simply saw that the page had been completely blanked with no edit summary given, noticed a warning about personal attacks on the users page, and then reverted based on that.  I'll let the user know that they should give edit summaries in the future; thanks for the heads-up! -- jonny - m  t  02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It happens. Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive
I was certain I added a summary including the "archiving". It must have slipped my head at the last moment. Okay, thanks for reminding me, anyways. --haha169 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. I hope you got a chance to review my answers (specifically question #8) before the RfA closed, which covered several policies that were mentioned on the RfA. In any case, I hope that with admin coaching in addition to pocketing a few more months of experience may possibly lead to your support in my next RfA. - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied by your answers to Question 8, and as I said in the RfA, I sincerely look forward to supporting you in your next one. I think you'll really get a lot of admin coaching; I fully expect you to be spouting admin-level jargon within a week or two :) Good luck! -- jonny - m  t  05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving off off Mike Goodwin's pages
I saw your message to me. Couple of things, consensus never trumps policy, so if a page is in violation of policy, this can never be changed by consensus.

His resume is not necessary to show that he's general counsel, that was on the admin boards, he also has an "icon" with a text message stating the same thing.

Once again, WP:NOT#WEBSPACES (policy) states that resumes are innapropriate for WP and therefore not allowed. Mr. Goodwin has a resume on his page. Doesn't matter if he's general counsel or not, he's bound by the same rules anyone else is.

BTW - I like your comment about windmills - cute, but not true :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay; I've designated today "tie up loose ends" day :)


 * While you're correct that WP:NOT is part a policy, you have to look at what the strict interpretation you're trying to apply results in. Per your reasoning, you would have to lose the nice picture from your userpage and I would have to delete the personal information explaining my background along with all userboxes not specifically related to my work on Wikipedia.  Going further and applying the strictest interpretation of the social-network aspect of that policy, we should get rid of barnstars, wikilove, and any talk page messages not explicitely aimed at working on articles.


 * The point of this reductio ad absurdum argument is to try and help you see that consensus, while never trumping policy, does have a say in its application. As I've argued before, in Mike's case his background as a lawyer is of paramount importance--given the sheer number of fields in which lawyers can specialize, it is not enough to know that he is a lawyer; anyone seeking his advice must also know what kind of lawyer he is.  Now, that being said, if you still feel that strongly about it, then you should put uw-ad1 (or uw-userpage) on his talk page.  I won't revert, but that's probably because I won't need to.


 * Incidentally, Don Quixote is one of my favorite books. I always got a kick out of the fact that a scene from such a goofy piece of Spanish literature became a serious phrase in the English language.... -- jonny - m  t  02:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interested in some bot work for WP:HAWAII?
See: User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I'm going to experiment with using the CategoryTree extension instead.  Crude, but effective. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility
I see you advised Leaveout to relax and not be sarcastic. Thanks for posting that. I'm afraid it's falling on deaf ears though. He/She responded on the user talk page to your advice and for a brief synopsis of this user, read the last 3 sections of Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get an understanding of what a few of us are dealing with. (note what i had to say in the paragraph that i bolded)--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems it's going to fall on no ears now. Very nicely done! -- jonny - m  t  09:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Jérôme Kerviel
You placed the notability tag on the article Jérôme Kerviel. There doesn't seem to be any question that the events surrounding Mr. Kerviel are notable, only whether there should be an article on Kerviel or the SocGen loss. Rather than placing a cleanup tag on a very well-sourced article, it may be more productive for you to discuss your concerns at Talk:Jérôme Kerviel. Thanks. &mdash;dgies tc 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you wholeheartedly--that's why the first thing I did after placing the tag was take it to the talk page. Thank you for your concern! -- jonny - m t  23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 頑張れ！ -- jonny - m t  08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. And thanks so much for all the other help you've been providing me, I sort of live under a rock when it comes to things that aren't directly related to images. Melesse (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Colin Beavan
That's a pretty good article, and it doesn't have to be tagged for Wikification, or deletion. Great work. Basketball one 1 0  03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I appreciate it! -- jonny - m t  03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
 <font face="trebuchet ms" color="#7d7d7d">.: RFA thanks :.

No rush
RfA is not a race. Take your time. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
...for taking time out of your busy schedule to check in and look around. Always good to see you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk page archiving
Hey Melesse,

Glad to see you're enjoying the buttons, not to mention the fun drama that comes with it :) I just wanted to let you know that, since you'll probably be getting a lot of messages as an admin, you might want to consider setting up automatic archiving of your talk page to prevent it from getting too cluttered up.  Naturally, you don't have to do this, but I've had archiving on for several months now, and even as a non-admin I find it to be pretty useful.  Thanks! -- jonny - m  t  04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I set it up so the bot will take care of archiving for me, but now...how do I look at my archives if I want to? :S Melesse (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to just put Archive box at the top of your talk page; if you put in the  parameter, it'll automatically link to all of your archive pages :) -- jonny - m  t  02:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! Cool! Thanks so much. Melesse (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello
A long time ago, you welcomed me to Wikipedia, and saved my userpage from deletion (I had blanked it). I would like to know how good of a Wikipedian I am now. Cheers, <font color="#4682B4">Basketball <font color="#FF8C00">110  <font color="#CD5C5C">vandalise me  16:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

hillraisers
2 to 1 is not overwhelming, get a dictionary and get educated. i put it back up since i felt there was not enough opinions to warrant the closure of the review especially since the discussion was ongoing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion deletions are not votes--the arguments presented in the AfD discussion constituted consensus in my opinion. If you disagree with my close, you are more than welcome to take it to deletion review.  I also suggest you refrain from personal attacks in the future--I notice you have already been warned once.  And please do remember to sign your posts.  -- jonny - m  t  04:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks
that was not a personal attack, and you must provide diffs. i'm assuming the 'uneducated' comment. read the personal attacks page, that just doesn't fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you have already been warned by an administrator about continued personal attacks, so there's no need for me to echo what they said. And may I ask what diffs you are talking about? -- jonny - m  t  00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Boomgaylove
You may want to know that he's been blocked. Interesting.... Bearian (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed...I was kind of hoping to participate in any ANI threads, but I can't argue with the outcome (or with Wikidemo's exhaustive presentation of relevant diffs). Thanks for the heads-up! -- jonny - m t  02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My userpage
Keep in mind your comments are appreciated. I assume good faith in their publications. That being said, however, I care not what you think. My user page helps the construction of this project as it boosts morale and lets others know about me. Have a good day sir. Discharging P (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, simply put I disagree with that statement. A userpage is supposed to tell people who they are dealing with when they are writing articles--a user who finds your page only to learn that you "LOVE SLUTS!!!" is not going to learn anything relevant about you and may in fact be offended, thereby achieving the opposite effect.


 * I suggest you look through the userpage policy, particularly the section on what you may not have on your userpage, to see where I am coming from. I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion so much as I'm suggesting you change the way you say it--for example, maybe you could say something like "I reject the labeling of women as 'sluts'" or something a bit more neutral.  That, to me, would be much more informative and motivational. -- jonny - m  t  04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But I do support the labelling of hot women as sluts. thanks but no thanks, dude. Loosen up. Discharging P (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J Stalin
An article that you have been involved in editing, J Stalin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination). Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock case
Thanks for paying attention to the suspected socks / meats. You should probably notify all of the people involved. I was hesitant to accuse them just yet without more evidence they're all the same or in league. Now that they're named, best to let them know. Perhaps we can sort this all out. He/she/they/it seem to be rapidly gaining an understanding of how to game the system so I hesitate to discuss methods. Wikidemo (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all; you've been a huge help yourself. By the way, I've already added the socksuspectnotice tag to the talk pages of the involved accounts.  You should feel free to use my e-mail link to discuss any methods or suspicions off-wiki, but to be honest it may be best to just take the whole thing to checkuser and have done with it. -- jonny - m  t  09:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also thinking of User:ILike2BeAnonymous (about whom we should be careful based on the user name lest they have a legit reason for an alternate account), user:SqueakBox (who appears to be an established user so I'm dubious about Icamepica's dubious admission on the subject), and User:Discharging P‎ (who may just be a weird user - look at the user page). I would not accuse these people out of the blue but given the circumstances we shouldn't rule anything out.  It could be an established user trolling, not necessarily a new problem user.  But we shouldn't create a witch hunt either.  Maybe checkuser is the way to go.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the key is to remain skeptical and assume good faith. I started the initial report based on what I saw as overwhelming evidence of a block being subverted and added the second IP for the same reasons.  When User:Icamepica was pointed out to me, I disagreed at first, thinking they were simply another user interested in the same area, but the IP diff showed that at least that user and one of the IPs are the same.


 * So suffice to say, I don't think the "admission" by Icamepica can be taken at face value.  This is my first sock hunt as well, but I think the most important thing here is to refrain from speculating without some good evidence to back it up. We've got most of the evidence in the SSP--while I think this case will ultimately wind up at WP:RFCU, it might be worth it just to let current report sit for a little bit and see what else comes up on wider scrutiny. -- jonny - m  t  09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the admission was weird and self-serving in that it seemed to be a sarcastic rebuke to the question about sockpuppetry. There is certainly enough to suspect Icamepica and the associated IP account of being boomgaylove.  Given the reasonable suspicion, the admission is a problem in itself.  Either it's true in part or whole, or if not true it is disruptive.  Although I hesitate to publicly name anyone else at this point boomgaylove showed all signs of being sneaky, so it only makes sense to cast suspicions widely, but accusations narrowly.Wikidemo (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see from this edit that you've noticed User:Cholga's renewed activity. Cholga has been quite busy, as you can see from Special:Contributions/Cholga. He (likely) nominated three articles for deletion, including a rather notable drug bazaar neighborhood in East Oakland, and User:71.142.64.177 popped in for an edit - one of the many quirks is trying to get rid of content relating to gangs and drug dealing. He's also called me paranoid and McCarthyish for going against the sock puppets. Swell. I wonder why some of these users have not been blocked at this point. Wikidemo (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got mail! -- jonny - m t  04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)