User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/February

RfA closed
I'm sorry, but I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Best of luck to your next time! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought your closing comment was a good idea. Very nice work so far! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I've seen you clerking up a storm around WP:SPI, lately, and wanted to thank you for your time spent over there. I very much appreciate it. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I'm enjoying the experience, both the run of the mill clerking, and the tweaking the templates to get the very best out of the process for all concerned. Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew
Don't use Inconclusive or those case-decision templates. It's very confusing and could misinterpret as a CU's result of inconclusive. I won't remove the signs in that page but I suggest you to modify it. Instead of using symbols, just use words to describe and let CU use them. (reply back at my talk page please) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NFA
I'll probably look like an idiot, but what does it mean? :D -- lucasbfr  talk 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No Further Action. I imagined that it was in common use, but it seems not! Mayalld (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ow, not really that's the first time I see it ^^ I asked around on the admin chan and nobody had a clue! I suggest you expand it, just to be sure the requesters don't come to your page asking what the hell you meant :) -- lucasbfr  talk 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't use it again! Mayalld (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report question
Can I add to the list of IPs on the Problem Users section on WP:SPI? This user seems to do the same pattern of vandalism as the user on those addresses listed. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are we seeking to find out whether there is a possible master account using these IPs, or just to determine collateral damage from a rangeblock? Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the address to the list. Actually, I originally put up the list on WP:AN/I because I wanted a quick response from admins and possible rangeblocks because of the similarities of the vandal edits. But for some reason, which I can understand, MZMcBride moved the list to WP:SPI. That's because those IPs were applying the same modus operandi as the user of IP, blocked for several times because of vandalism on several articles, especially on the Regine Velasquez article and its talk page, thus giving rise to a possible sock puppet conspiracy. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Since the list is now in WP:SPI instead of WP:AN/I, I leave it up to you on how to handle these problem users and their vandal edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/BoiledCable
I'm not sure whether checkuser is required, but because there are several accounts, and there is the possibility of other unnoticed accounts I wondered whether it could be justified. — Snigbrook 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My inclination at present is that, on the evidence presented, there is no immediate need for a CU. If you strongly believe that a CU is required, I am happy to ask for a second opinion from another clerk. Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, maybe it isn't needed. Can the SPI page be changed and recategorised as not needing a CU or is a new request needed? — Snigbrook  18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll sort the page. Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing
I think I misspoke here. What do you call a CU request in which socking is suspected, but the puppetmaster is unknown (the practice explicitly allowed here)? NJGW (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a fine line that we tread over fishing. It clearly wouldn't be appropriate (or possible) to CU every vandal that came along, so there does have to be a reasonable suspicion that there is some socking, rather than just vandalism. In this case, I know that Tiptoety has had a conversation with you, and regarded it as fishing, and I had separately arrived at the conclusion that it was just the wrong side of the fishing line (that just looks wrong). The criteria that I used was to ask the question; is it reasonably believable that this could just be a vandal?, and the answer was (just) yes. Having said that, Tiptoey and I are merely SPI clerks here, and whilst filtering requests so as not to burden the CUs with checks that they are highly likely to decline is part of our role, the final decision in any case rests with the checkusers.
 * If you strongly believe that this ought to go before a CU, I will restore the case and pass it to the Checkusers without endorsement, for them to decide whether it is appropriate.
 * Let me know if you would like me to do this. Mayalld (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I and an admin that also came in contact with the user's initial edits both thought it was suspicious behavior for a new user. While I'm confident that there is a banned user behind this, at this point I see no harm in letting more evidence accumulate until they start making significant mainspace disruption.  I was just wondering what term to use instead of "fishing" in cases like this.  NJGW (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that we can afford to give him some more rope to make a noose! As to terminology, dunno! I don't think we have a name for it when it isn't fishing. Mayalld (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Something popped up on my watchlist that made me look at this again. These are all connected by cross posts on talk pages:
 * (part of a sock farm)
 * (part of a sock farm)
 * (part of a sock farm)



One IP is to Wright State University (Dayton, OH), and the other two whois to RR headquarters... tracert fizzles out at "network-024-029-165-082.woh.rr.com [24.29.165.82]". I'm guessing that woh.rr.com is Ohio (tell me if I'm wrong). Is this enough to get a CU on Arisedrew/Banana254 vs Barnstarr, or is that too much conjecture? NJGW (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Others that have made similar edits are, and .  All are in Dayton, Ohio, the 24.33 and 65.189 IPs are the same ISP (probably dynamic IPs) and the connection to 130.108.122.142 has been admitted by 65.189.241.100.  I don't know if any of this is connected to Arisedrew, as according to Sockpuppet_investigations/Arisedrew/Archive the user is in New York (although one suspected sock, , is in Columbus, Ohio). — Snigbrook  18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the Dayton group keeps returning to Fat acceptance movement, so they're probably all the same person. I guess the question is actually whether Barnstarr is part of the Dayton group or Arisedrew (or some other bored soul).  NJGW (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on that lot, I would raise a new SPI report on Arisedew. Relist any of his known socks that have recent contribs (as they will help the CU to establish links), and List it as code letters B&E (serious long term vandalism and Community block evasion), and I'll endorse it for CU. Mayalld (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I opened Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew. I added a section "Previously confirmed and recently active socks"... let me know if this messes up any formatting.  NJGW (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight election vote
You're of course entitled to your vote and I'm not asking you to change it, but can you just tell me (and I'm sure others are wondering as well) what do AFD closures have to do with Oversight? Specifically, I'm referring to your comment here. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked, because it has caused me to take stock. I agonised over that vote, because I found myself in a quandry. I have the utmost respect for Matt, and his admin actions. He hits the mark, and I would aspire to such quality if I were to pass an RFA. My concern lies in the fact that he closes a very high proportion of AFDs. He is, in effect the chief judge of article deletion on en.wp.
 * The fact that his judgement is almost always sound is a positive, and I am confident that he would be likewise a sound judge of oversight.
 * The niggle that I have is that I do wonder if there should be a separation of powers here, and I have to question whether somebody who does a lot of deleting is somebody who should also be oversighting. Not because he would get it wrong, but because he would be vulnerable to charges that he wielded excessive power.
 * Your question leads me to doubt my vote, and I thank you for posing it. It is now 11pm, and time for bed. I shall sleep on it, and consider my vote in the morning. Mayalld (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I suppose I understand your concern although I disagree with it, simply because I think Matt will be a good oversight and I can't even imagine him straying from the oversight policy.  Thanks again for the explanation — get some rest. ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI clerking.
Hi Mayalld, I spoke with your "coach" and we both feel it appropriate to "promote" you to a full clerk. While there is nothing new that you can do I will not be watching over your shoulder quite as much, and you can take on clerk trainee's if you like. Keep up the good work! Tiptoety talk 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask whether I was doing OK. It's a fine line to walk between being too easy to endorse every CU request that comes along, and being too hard on delisting cases because the behaviour isn't sufficient to warrant action. Thanks for the vote of confidence! Mayalld (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA closed
I'm sorry, but I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Best of luck to your next time! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought your closing comment was a good idea. Very nice work so far! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I've seen you clerking up a storm around WP:SPI, lately, and wanted to thank you for your time spent over there. I very much appreciate it. – Luna Santin  (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I'm enjoying the experience, both the run of the mill clerking, and the tweaking the templates to get the very best out of the process for all concerned. Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew
Don't use Inconclusive or those case-decision templates. It's very confusing and could misinterpret as a CU's result of inconclusive. I won't remove the signs in that page but I suggest you to modify it. Instead of using symbols, just use words to describe and let CU use them. (reply back at my talk page please) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NFA
I'll probably look like an idiot, but what does it mean? :D -- lucasbfr  talk 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No Further Action. I imagined that it was in common use, but it seems not! Mayalld (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ow, not really that's the first time I see it ^^ I asked around on the admin chan and nobody had a clue! I suggest you expand it, just to be sure the requesters don't come to your page asking what the hell you meant :) -- lucasbfr  talk 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't use it again! Mayalld (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report question
Can I add to the list of IPs on the Problem Users section on WP:SPI? This user seems to do the same pattern of vandalism as the user on those addresses listed. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are we seeking to find out whether there is a possible master account using these IPs, or just to determine collateral damage from a rangeblock? Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the address to the list. Actually, I originally put up the list on WP:AN/I because I wanted a quick response from admins and possible rangeblocks because of the similarities of the vandal edits. But for some reason, which I can understand, MZMcBride moved the list to WP:SPI. That's because those IPs were applying the same modus operandi as the user of IP, blocked for several times because of vandalism on several articles, especially on the Regine Velasquez article and its talk page, thus giving rise to a possible sock puppet conspiracy. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Since the list is now in WP:SPI instead of WP:AN/I, I leave it up to you on how to handle these problem users and their vandal edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/BoiledCable
I'm not sure whether checkuser is required, but because there are several accounts, and there is the possibility of other unnoticed accounts I wondered whether it could be justified. — Snigbrook 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My inclination at present is that, on the evidence presented, there is no immediate need for a CU. If you strongly believe that a CU is required, I am happy to ask for a second opinion from another clerk. Mayalld (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, maybe it isn't needed. Can the SPI page be changed and recategorised as not needing a CU or is a new request needed? — Snigbrook  18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll sort the page. Mayalld (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing
I think I misspoke here. What do you call a CU request in which socking is suspected, but the puppetmaster is unknown (the practice explicitly allowed here)? NJGW (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a fine line that we tread over fishing. It clearly wouldn't be appropriate (or possible) to CU every vandal that came along, so there does have to be a reasonable suspicion that there is some socking, rather than just vandalism. In this case, I know that Tiptoety has had a conversation with you, and regarded it as fishing, and I had separately arrived at the conclusion that it was just the wrong side of the fishing line (that just looks wrong). The criteria that I used was to ask the question; is it reasonably believable that this could just be a vandal?, and the answer was (just) yes. Having said that, Tiptoey and I are merely SPI clerks here, and whilst filtering requests so as not to burden the CUs with checks that they are highly likely to decline is part of our role, the final decision in any case rests with the checkusers.
 * If you strongly believe that this ought to go before a CU, I will restore the case and pass it to the Checkusers without endorsement, for them to decide whether it is appropriate.
 * Let me know if you would like me to do this. Mayalld (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I and an admin that also came in contact with the user's initial edits both thought it was suspicious behavior for a new user. While I'm confident that there is a banned user behind this, at this point I see no harm in letting more evidence accumulate until they start making significant mainspace disruption.  I was just wondering what term to use instead of "fishing" in cases like this.  NJGW (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that we can afford to give him some more rope to make a noose! As to terminology, dunno! I don't think we have a name for it when it isn't fishing. Mayalld (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Something popped up on my watchlist that made me look at this again. These are all connected by cross posts on talk pages:
 * (part of a sock farm)
 * (part of a sock farm)
 * (part of a sock farm)



One IP is to Wright State University (Dayton, OH), and the other two whois to RR headquarters... tracert fizzles out at "network-024-029-165-082.woh.rr.com [24.29.165.82]". I'm guessing that woh.rr.com is Ohio (tell me if I'm wrong). Is this enough to get a CU on Arisedrew/Banana254 vs Barnstarr, or is that too much conjecture? NJGW (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Others that have made similar edits are, and .  All are in Dayton, Ohio, the 24.33 and 65.189 IPs are the same ISP (probably dynamic IPs) and the connection to 130.108.122.142 has been admitted by 65.189.241.100.  I don't know if any of this is connected to Arisedrew, as according to Sockpuppet_investigations/Arisedrew/Archive the user is in New York (although one suspected sock, , is in Columbus, Ohio). — Snigbrook  18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the Dayton group keeps returning to Fat acceptance movement, so they're probably all the same person. I guess the question is actually whether Barnstarr is part of the Dayton group or Arisedrew (or some other bored soul).  NJGW (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on that lot, I would raise a new SPI report on Arisedew. Relist any of his known socks that have recent contribs (as they will help the CU to establish links), and List it as code letters B&E (serious long term vandalism and Community block evasion), and I'll endorse it for CU. Mayalld (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I opened Sockpuppet investigations/Arisedrew. I added a section "Previously confirmed and recently active socks"... let me know if this messes up any formatting.  NJGW (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oversight election vote
You're of course entitled to your vote and I'm not asking you to change it, but can you just tell me (and I'm sure others are wondering as well) what do AFD closures have to do with Oversight? Specifically, I'm referring to your comment here. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked, because it has caused me to take stock. I agonised over that vote, because I found myself in a quandry. I have the utmost respect for Matt, and his admin actions. He hits the mark, and I would aspire to such quality if I were to pass an RFA. My concern lies in the fact that he closes a very high proportion of AFDs. He is, in effect the chief judge of article deletion on en.wp.
 * The fact that his judgement is almost always sound is a positive, and I am confident that he would be likewise a sound judge of oversight.
 * The niggle that I have is that I do wonder if there should be a separation of powers here, and I have to question whether somebody who does a lot of deleting is somebody who should also be oversighting. Not because he would get it wrong, but because he would be vulnerable to charges that he wielded excessive power.
 * Your question leads me to doubt my vote, and I thank you for posing it. It is now 11pm, and time for bed. I shall sleep on it, and consider my vote in the morning. Mayalld (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I suppose I understand your concern although I disagree with it, simply because I think Matt will be a good oversight and I can't even imagine him straying from the oversight policy.  Thanks again for the explanation — get some rest. ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI clerking.
Hi Mayalld, I spoke with your "coach" and we both feel it appropriate to "promote" you to a full clerk. While there is nothing new that you can do I will not be watching over your shoulder quite as much, and you can take on clerk trainee's if you like. Keep up the good work! Tiptoety talk 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask whether I was doing OK. It's a fine line to walk between being too easy to endorse every CU request that comes along, and being too hard on delisting cases because the behaviour isn't sufficient to warrant action. Thanks for the vote of confidence! Mayalld (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI blanking cmt
As per this, apologies. My justification was in reverting the edits of a confirmed sockpuppet of a community banned editor, who was already blocked by the time I reverted his edits. Since the sock was confirmed at ANI and done here permanently, I saw no harm done in reverting any of their edits remaining and rolled it back. In the future, I'll leave a better explanation even in cases where the editor is already blocked. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst normally I would agree with the rollback of edits by socks of banned users, the one place where that does not hold true is at WP:SPI. SPI is a place where we deal with sockpuppetry, and in many cases the alleged sock will issue denials. Quite apart from the fact that the text of those denials is useful information about editing style, it would be a nonsense if we went through every SPI case removing the comments of those who were eventually found to be socks. Please don't remove comments from SPI cases. Mayalld (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll let them hang themselves with their own writing styles, then. Thanks for the explanation, take care! Dayewalker (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your non-admin. closure of my AfD
I think it was premature, as you mistakenly say that I requested its closure. I crossed that out before you closed it. Could you please revert your closure; there are still contentious issues and the matter needs administrative attention. See my comments in my own talk page in response to your questions left there. I had decided that it should remain open for the full period (7 days, due to grave issues about how this article has gotten into Wikipedia in the first place and the conflicts of interest problems throughout its editing history. Thanks.  Due to the mistake in the non-admin. closing, I think I may have to ask an administrator to revert it, so that other admins. can take a look at the article's history and development.  Thanks very much.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversed the closure of my AfD
I crossed out the mistaken claim that I requested closing the AfD. I had not done that at the time you closed it. There are still issues that need review in relation to this deletion nomination, and they need to be dealt with. Please see the cross-out in relation to Non-admin closure guidelines. There was no un-ambiguous desire to withdraw my nomination of this AfD. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
As the endorsing clerk, should Sockpuppet investigations/Gmatsuda be transcluded somewhere on Sockpuppet investigations? It doesn't appear to be... &mdash; Scientizzle 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given it a kick, and it is now transcluded. I think I upset the bot by endorsing it when I moved it to a case. Mayalld (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson
Hello, long time no speak, hows it going ? I was wondering if you could get the above article back to it's orginal state, as it was. Thanks --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

please take a look
at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INAYAT KARIM. I reported it the right way round this time and suspect strongly that the same guy is back in a new guise. Determined spammer, it seems. I'm sure I've done something wrong, but hey, it can only get better, right? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

lv 2 headers
Ref Nixeagle asks me to tell you that he should be the one to be slapped. Removing the headers is supposed to be the bot's duty. Don't hesitate to report it if it happens again :). -- lucasbfr  talk 19:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magnificator
thank you. I left a vague response. Can't adequately put "hunch" into words, I guess. :( SpikeJones (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Sophia987/Archive
Hi,

I'd like to ask some advice since I'm entirely unexperienced with sockpuppet investigations.

This account edited the article in the middle of an NPOV discussion and made the major revert back to the NPOV state that article was in before I tried to change it. I think this is highly suspicious, so I requested the investigation.

I have two questions:
 * 1) Is the number of edits really that important, i.e. isn't this behaviour weird enough? I know there's too little edits to speak of a "pattern" or anything, but I think of myself as quite an experienced editor, and this seemed an obvious sockpuppet move to me.
 * 2) Do I understand correctly that I have to accuse someone in particular for you to check? There are maybe 5 editors working on that article including myself, and I'm kinda singled out, so I would suspect it is one of the others. The number of editors really involved in that article seems small enough to do an investigation?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of edits isn't the be-all and end-all of it, but it isn't entirely irrelevant.
 * The question to be answered at WP:SPI is whether there is any abusive sockpuppetry going on (see WP:SOCK), and the question that must be asked is "If this is another editor, what policy is he using an alternate account to evade, or what advantage does he seek to gain in the dispute".
 * Having looked at all the users that you are in dispute with, none of them could have used this account to evade policy, and given that the dispute is already four to one, nobody has any need to create a sock to support their position.
 * If you can't work out who the master account is, how do you imagine that SPI will do so. It might be possible, using CheckUser, but going on a fishing trip on an account that has only two edits, and where neither of those edits obviously contravene policy just isn't allowed.
 * This basically boils down to a 4:1 NPOV dispute. Now, whilst numbers don't prove anything, being the lone voice against a few opposing editors should give you cause to take stock, and ask whether they could possibly be a little bit right.
 * I have little doubt that "their" version is problematic, and should be changed, but I have equally little doubt that your version seeks to gloss over some issues, and puts forward a POV by being selective with the sources.
 * I would suggest that you pursue your content dispute at WP:MEDCAB, and that immediately concluding that any new editor who opposes your view must be a sock is not the way to proceeed. Mayalld (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my question. You confirmed what I already suspected by explaining about the fishing trip.
 * But I'm very disappointed with your views of me and what you think I'm trying to do. I can assure you that I am no lone voice; if you think that, than you haven't spent much time looking at what is going on. You cannot begin to imagine how hard I try to question my edits and to 'write for the enemy' so to speak. You are actually accusing me of POV-pushing and selective referencing and because you are in a position of responsibility by dealing with SPIs, I can tell you that you have hurt my feelings very much and that I didn't ask to be judged by you, I think you should keep a neutral position and not suggest that in a 4:1 dispute "numbers don't prove anything BUT...". If you think that I did something like "immediately concluding that any new editor who opposes your view must be a sock" you must think I'm simple. I asked you a technical question and not your opinion on our NPOV dispute; I think it would be better if you don't say such upsetting and patronising things, they're really not helpful. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that I've made any unjust accusations.
 * You say that you are not a lone voice, which may well be the case. I haven't spent many hours checking out every single edit. I based that comment on your comment above There are maybe 5 editors working on that article including myself, and I'm kinda singled out.
 * As you say, I am in a position of responsibility with respect to SPI, I have a responsibility to ensure that abusive sockpuppetry is caught and stopped, but I also have a responsibility to ensure that inappropriate accusations (whether made in good faith, as yours was, or whether with malicious intent, which yours most certainly wasn't) are removed.
 * That responsibility means that remit extends beyond mere technical questions, and encompasses redirecting inapropriate cases as appropriate. This case was not appropriate for SPI, and in my reply I was seeking to point to more appropriate venues.
 * If, in attempting to give as full (and helpful) an answer as possible, I have inadvertently caused offence, I can only offer my apologies. It was most certainly not my intent. Mayalld (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB edits
Hi, just a note. Your current additions seem malformed. When using AWB, I usually check a few to ensure it's doing what I think it should be doing. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "See Also" -> "See also" (per WP:MoS
 * 2) Addn entries added under 'see also' - not a list
 * 3) Portal entries should be added as first item under 'External links' (MoS, again}
 * Thanks for the heads up on the capitalisation error, which I will fix.
 * However, WP:ALSO says that portal links should appear in see also, and that see also should be a bulleted list.
 * Mayalld (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I sit corrected! But the two items you're adding are losing their bullets - so, just appear side by side. See Wilton Water, for example. Kbthompson (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn! Right, I will go back and fix that! Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That should keep you busy! Good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re -- that edit that was oversighted for the Baby P page
I know we have our disagreements on the matter, but there was no need to accuse an otherwise constructive new IP author who inserts factually correct information into an article of vandalism. Ray (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI
I know this edit was supposed to help, but it reformatted the entire page, causing a few errors. ^_^  Syn  ergy 22:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you let me know how the formatting of the page was affected? The change was designed to automate the admin backlog notice when the number of open cases goes over 30, and I couldn't see any formatting problems with it when tested. Mayalld (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow, the bot page enclosed around half of the page. I had another clerk take a look before I removed it, also checking any other transcluded page. I was a bit confused as to what it was, but when I changed it back in preview, the format was corrected. Maybe FT2 or Tip knows more, as I believe they created the pages and formatting.  Syn  ergy 19:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that. I've checked the code several times, and there is nothing that should cause it to do that. It could be that something else that was transcluded had caused a formatting error, and had been fixed, but was waiting on the job queue. I've changed it back, on the grounds that provided it works, it is useful, as it will hopefully bring in the cavalry whenever SPI gets busy, without anybody having to do anything. If it happens again, can you see if a null edit cures the problem. Otherwise, I may wrap the parser function inside a template. Mayalld (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we could always try it again. I don't see the harm in it.  Syn  ergy 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Polaroid Eyewear
I see that User:Mdlgj has recreated the Polaroid Eyewear article that you previously tagged for speedy deletion. I'm not certain whether this should be speedied again. What do you think? Your comment on his talk page asked what the article provides that Polaroid Corporation does not. From reading the article, it seems that Polaroid Eyewear is now a separate company. The parent company sold it over a year ago. It's not clear to me whether Polaroid Eyewear is notable in its own right. It might well be.--Srleffler (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

spi
I think I've provided plenty now.  Grsz 11  19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did provide diffs. Did you miss that?  Grsz 11  20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the diffs eventually, but it didn't help that several of the links were just to history pages, rather than to specific diffs. Hopefully the case is back on track now. Mayalld (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I used diffs for all of it, there would be dozens. I don't think it's too much to ask a checkuser just to look at the history. If they can bother to do that, they'll see the similar articles.  Grsz 11  21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there could be dozens of them, but we don't need every diff, just the ones that show that something wrong is afoot. You say "If they can bother to do that". Please bear in mind that in order to protect the privacy of Wikipedia contributors, we have a VERY small number of CheckUsers, and that as such it is important that cases come to the CheckUsers with as much relevant information as possible, so that the case doesn't take the CU any longer than necessary. Mayalld (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI report on Nimbley6
Hi

I wasn't sure where to add this to the SPI report so figured I'd ping you directly... apologies if that's not good form.

Nimbley6's recent SPI reports have all involved edits to Scottish musicians' articles (e.g. this confirmed and blocked editor) - Scotland has been been semi-protected for so long that Nimbley6 can't edit it.

Check out the recent SPI reports - they should all involve Leon Jackson and/or related articles.

Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again - just wanted to see if you'd had a chance to re-look at this case. A few other editors, familiar with User:Nimbley6, have weighed in on the SPI report, and I've added a few extra details that - hopefully! - make the link clearer.  Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to drop by and say thanks - the account in question has now been blocked. Thanks again, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting
All those disruptive ip's are from england and you just happen to be from england too ,very rich, but i will assume good faith right? But it gets hard.I still find it odd even that i showed that there are a boat load of trollers dogging my edits all you can bring up is, i did a sock once in which i did it to try and deflect the hoard of disruptive single article only accounts and ip's, no dear i dont own the article and not trying to, but trying to protect the integrity of it but that seems to gone over you're head enjoy you're tea time--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on what should and should not be in certain articles is very fixed, and you are not in the habit of letting them be swayed by the weight of consensus. If the weight of consensus is against you, first you create socks to swing the balance, then you accuse your "opponent" of creating socks to play down the weight of contrary opinion. You are correct that I am from England, but not Opal Telecom. I have no problem whatsoever in disclosing what IPs you might find me coming in from. I normally edit via 217.35.113.242(BT ADSL - fixed address), Occasionally via a 144.87.0.0/16 address (my place of work), or (as at present) from a UKOnline DSL dynamic address. From time to time, I will connect via Orange GPRS. I have nothing whatsoever to hide. Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay can you explain to me where i want against a consensus? When i showed other even much more established users revering the pov pushing of all these ips and accounts, in which if the accounts are checked i garantee they also have an english origin from the same place in england like the ip's and most of the accounts were blocked already one of them were blocked by an admin for pov pushing it's clear there sock accounts set up to edit war side swipe wikipedia policy and avoid having a history of being disruptive one of the reasons i brought up a sock case was because once again i make an edit on olive skin what happends a new user single article account comes and dogs my edit and also dont make the statement that look who's calling the kettle black because then you are giving user's permission to use socks against--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so your contention is that there is some sort of English Cabal working against you, and that as I'm English, I must be part of the Cabal? Well, sorry to dissapoint, but I'm not!
 * Let us look at your recen edits to Olive skin in reverse order;
 * Adding a comment to a picture claiming that the subject has olive skin due to tanning, and citing The Sun as proof.
 * I've read the article in The Sun and it does indeed refer to him getting a tan, but you provide no sources that show that the picture is of him after getting the tan (quite apart from questions about using The Sun as a reliable source)
 * (series of edits) removing a claim that Victoria Beckham's Skin tone is due to suntanning, and citing a book by Victoria Beckham.
 * Since when have we ever regarded self-published sources as reliable?
 * Replacing a sentence noting the common occurence of olive skin in Latin America, with a sentence attributing olive skin in the Americas to European and Middle Eastern imigration.
 * Unsourced
 * Your editing seems to be centred on pushing your own personal views on the subject, and has WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Your edit to the Ronaldo picture seemed to be rather WP:POINTy, as it implies that if people are going to say that VB only has olive skin due to tanning, you will make that claim about other people to "teach them a lesson". This is not how WP operates. Wikipedia works by collegiate editing and talking through differences of opinion, rather than trying to "win" by wearing down those with an opposing view, or trying to get them blocked. If you can't settle your content disputes that way, SPI is not the place to try next. If you are having a content dispute, take it to WP:3 or WP:MEDCAB Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But you failed to point out out the autobigraphy had a corroborative source to go along with it ,also i hope you're currently looking at the talk page as UserDingdongacid rants and raves at me[] as i have tried to explain to him that he should use the talk page as i have in the past and are right now to resolve issues--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The "corroborative source" merely describes her as having an olive skin tone, without saying whether that tone is natural or not. Trying to say that an article describing her as olive skinned means that it isn't as a result of tanning or fake tans is pure WP:SYNTH, and won't do.
 * I say all this without any particular comment on your "opponent", for the simple reason that he hasn't raised an SPI case on you, and he isn't trying to argue with me about the closure of that case.
 * The fact is that this IS a content dispute, and should never have got within a million miles of SPI. Sort it out as a content dispute, because trying to use SPI to advance your position in a content dispute is gaming the system, and a sure fire way to attract unwelcome admin attention to your own conduct.
 * I note that an edit war on the article continues, and I have issued BOTH of you with a warning due to your potential breach of WP:3RR. Mayalld (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave i raised the sock puppet case because my edits are constantly being needled by single article accounts, i would hope that you would assumme that i have made some good faith edits in 2500 plus edits ,but lets make a deal, i have nothing to hide but i will add content that is sourced to the article,also i will ask you can you watch the article to see that people inclueing me are following the rules and not needling other peoples edits and editors are using the talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that when "needled", you react by opening up on every front. You edit war with the person needling you, and simultaneously ask for your opponent to be sanctioned for breaching policy. If you want your oppnent dealt with, you must come with clean hands, because if an issue is going to get admins wielding the block button, they are not going to count up the policy breaches, and block the user with most breaches. Everybody breaching policy can look forward to a block.
 * Mayalld (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Dave i would like to point out that the source about Ronaldo does not state exactly that he has natural Olive skin either[] just out of fairness for the rationale you gave my source can you evaulte this source as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I am not trying to resolve your content dispute. I am merely noting that it exists and that filing SPI cases is NOT the way to resolve it. Mayalld (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a comment Wikiscribe. Yes, you may have indeed made "some good faith edits". Many of our community's blocked and banned users have done so - the problem lies with when they don't do this; and you're certainly a prime example of that. You've been blocked three times, and warned many, many other times over edit warring (that last block in fact based on sockpuppetery to escape an edit warring block). You ask people to assume good faith of you (despite the very unlikely conditions you've now created for this), and yet you, in the same sentence, imply that there are single-purpose socks all forming a cabal against you (and you previously claimed that Mayalld was involved in this too). A phrase I feel the need to use here, is "quality, not quantity". The number of your edits is irrelevant, and no offence, but you really need to take some time to look over some of Wikipedia's policies. Sometimes a Wiki-break can be very benefitial (perhaps in this case, coupled with reading the rules and guidelines), as you can come back refreshed and more clear-headed. I really hope you will consider my advice. Also, apologies to Mayalld for this dispute spilling onto his talkpage.
 * Oh, and a last comment. If you still have any doubts of me being a SPA sock Wikiscribe, I once held an account here, but after giving away too much personal information, suffered off-wiki harrasment, so requested the right to vanish. I will happily email the name of my old account to any administrator who requests it however. Dingdongacid (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to e-mail me your former user name. Naturally, it would not be divulged on-wiki. Mayalld (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the "email this user" feature isn't appearing. Could you provide me with the email link - or email me (so I can reply). Cheers. Dingdongacid (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're very familar with wiki policy, and you're preaching to me about policy but you seem to lack certain policy knowledge yourself, you are right now WP:Kettle--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example of where you pick up a word used on you, and try to use it incorrectly on others. If you believe I am in breach of a policy, please openly state what it is. Dingdongacid (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You are lacking in NPOV also you're refusal to use the talk page, you're edit warring,also you only seemed interested in discounting Victoria Beckham olive skin but sources also suggest Ronaldo's olive skin is the result of sun tanning

Look here at you're temper on the talk page you talk about i should do this assume good faith

'''Are you being serious? It's obvious you've heard someone use the WP:OWN term before, but have never really even checked what it means. I can't be bothered with you - you're a sockpuppeter that has been blocked numerous times, and who continues to disrupt, accuse others of sockpuppeting to conflate his opposition (to the point of accusing a checkuserist of being me!), and then saying that reverting you equals ownership. Also, after looking at one of your proven sockpuppets' contributions, it's obvious that you are capable of using legible English so please do so'''

and that was in the context of me asking you to use the talk page in the future to resovle our issues, instead of constantly changing others edits in which you have done to me on that article already twice in a matter of a few days,without you once trying to use the talk page until i did.

also look at your edit summaries venom filled edit summaries toward me

'''YOU are the one who has been blocked for sockpuppeting to avoid 3RR and repeatedly told off for trying to WP:OWN the article. YOU are the one who must counter my points on the talk.) (undo)'''

come on this would hardly be the tone of somebody who is willing to work with others i.e you accuse me of being uncivil but yet you are to WP:kettle and at that point i was already agreeing with what you did anyway ,but yet you're argument about dates of articles are invalid in other words you're trying to split hairs to pov push--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But also now that i know you are a former editor, please if you don't agree with my edits in the future please don't just call me a sock in you're edit sums and revert and rufute my sourced edits in a sum ,please use the dang talk page first--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you on about? How does me having excercized the right to vanish have anything to do with identifying you as a sock? You certainly are something, you know that. Dingdongacid (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
a CU request cannot be considered unless you provide evidence in the shape of diffs Mayalld (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added evidence to the case. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Memsom alleged sock puppetry
I have put forward the following explanation as to why I am not the owner/user of the problematic IP address in question. Essentially, I would have been in one of three places at the time that edit was made: (1) Work in London, (2) Train travelling to my home address (3) at home on the South coast of England. It was physically impossible for me to be in Cambridge. I'm unable to provide absolute proof that I didn't somehow hack in to their system and use it remotely, but I can assure you I didn't. You could enquire in to the matter with the University in question, doing a whois on the IP address gives a lot of contact info, including phone numbers and email addresses.

Thanks in advance. Memsom (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Delisting
Be careful when delisting cases, Sockpuppet investigations/Dingdongacid does have a few socks that can be identified based on editing patterns. I found a seperate pattern on Human Skin Color with most of the IPs and the accounts all adding the same image. That evidence in addition to what is presented more or less seals the deal that there was/is some socking going on. ——  nix eagle email me 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. Can you give a bit of a rundown of what the report looks for? Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/God=nocioni1
Hi Mayalld, at the above case the SPIarchive template you some wonderfully created seems to not be working correctly. Anyway you could fix this? Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Tiptoety  talk 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "=" signs in template calls confuse the hell out of things when passing positional parameters. Can be fixed for all future cases by always adding "1=" as a prefix to the parameter (as we do on the checkuser template in cases. I'm just heading home, but it should be a simple change to the bot.... Mayalld (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

G6
Hi, I notice that you have removed G6 tagging from a couple of WP:SPI subpages that are redirects created when a case was renamed. Could I ask why? Redirects in this space cause problems, because the Clerkbot lists them as cases, and even when the case that they redirect to is closed, the bot doesn't delist them. Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I declined them because
 * They seemed to be pointless.
 * It wasn't clear to me how criterion G6 fitted these cases. (It wasn't to make way for a move, etc.)
 * Now if the bot has problems with redirects then I can accept that. (Although it might be a good idea if the bot can be reprogrammed so you can just forget about the redirects.) And I suppose G6 could be interpreted a little more flexibly as it's project space and not article space ... Forgive me making this more difficult; I'm being extra careful as I've only been an admin for a short time. Cheers, Martinmsgj 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, caution is always a good thing! I think they do fit G6, particularly when they are "process" oriented pages, and the request comes from somebody who is clerking that process. These pages have been deleted under G6 from when SPI started, so your decline was a bit of a "huh, what the...." moment. Do you wish me to retag, or are you happy to delete them? Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted them. Martinmsgj 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I've initiated a discussion amongst the SPI clerks to see if there is a better way to do this. Mayalld (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Open SPI cases
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)