User talk:Mayalld/Archive/2009/June

SPI note
Thanks for your note and I will not make any further comment on the SPI page. I was just attempting to point out in my clumsy way that certain other parties, like admin Piotrus, have been excluded from viewing this "super sekret" evidence, while admins like Deacon of Pndapetzim have had the opportunity to view it and continue to make comments about it on the SPI page. My intent was not to question the motives of Deacon, but rather just to make the observation that Deacon and Piotrus are in opposite camps as evidenced in past content disputes, both having been subject to ArbCom sanctions, so it seems odd that Piotrus is not permitted to view the evidence while Deacon has seen it and continues to comment on it on the SPI page. I think in the interests of balance either Deacon's comments should be removed, as they don't seem to add anything new other than his opinion on the existing evidence, or allow Piotrus to view and comment on it too as a balance. Anyway that's my observation. Obviously you have a better understanding of how these SPI pages should be run, so I apologise if that was not the appropriate place to voice my observations. --Martintg (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. It is unfortunate that the case has been so mishandled thus far as to require aggressive clerking at this stage. Let us hope that we have the case back on track. Mayalld (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, wouldn't it actually be better to close the current case and re-open a new one from scratch (if Skapperod still wishes to do that), with the secret evidence made public and a strict adherence to procedures? The whole thing became a mess mostly because a lot of people were concerned about secret way the whole thing was conducted. If some review of the secret evidence has been done already that can be just incorporated into the new case, along with the CU that's been done.radek (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is something that has been considered, but that could equally just lead to an attempt to re-run the present drama. As far as I can see, now that the case has 4 clerks (yes four) guarding it and preventing any further nonsense, things are going better. I want to get this case done, dusted and closed sooner rather than later. Mayalld (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask you to restore those comments (feel free to move them around). I agree with Marting and Radeksz that they are important. Is the "secret evidence" available only to selected persons who already have made an opinion on whether Molobo/Gwen are guilty or not? Whether this is the case or not, it currently appears so. I'll also note that some editors have made statements that they will publicize this evidence shortly, yet others insist it has to stay secret forever. This is confusing, and it is leading to unhelpful atmosphere of bad faith :( To deal with this, it should be made clear who can access this evidence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to restore any comments. They remain in the history for anybody who cares enough about the case. The issue of secret evidence was adequately addressed, and the validity of the argument isn't affected by the number of people saying it. Regardless of who has (and has not) actually seen the secret evidence, the decision on the case was taken by a CheckUser, who had access to non-public evidence. I have no idea whether the decision was swayed by that evidence, but I am satisfied that a decision based on non-public evidence has NOT been taken by the admin who was looking at the case. Non-public evidence is not ideal, but non-public evidence handled other than by those appointed to CU/Arbcom would be utterly unacceptable. Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please explain to me why evidence was leaked to User:Deacon of Pndapetzim? Which part of CU/Arbcom equation is he? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I didn't "leak" the information (I never saw the information), I can't provide an explanation. You should ask the person who leaked the information for an explanation. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I find such censorship really annoying. A promise was made, and it should be explained why it was not kept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is as may be. However, the case has been archived, and editing archived cases is NOT the way to proceed, and reverting such edits is not censorship. If you believe that this needs further discussion (after due consideration of WP:HORSE), I would suggest that you make your comments on WT:SPI rather than editing the case archive. Mayalld (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7
Sorry for adding another comment, but I feel if I don't cross every t and dot every i, that an archived discussion will be used as "proof" that Ratel's conclusions were correct. If the discussion needs to be deleted or moved, that's fine with me, but I wanted to let you know I did have a reason. Flowanda | Talk 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

page for Alexander S. Potupa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_S._Potupa Hi there. I am new to Wiki and its rules and learn as I write a page for my dad. You have made changes to my External Links (18:02, 4 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Alexander S. Potupa ‎ (→External links: fix interwikis)). What does it mean? I can't link to Russian or Belarussian Wiki? Or should I put a language tag for it? Many thanks for your help! --Elalpo (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * External links are reserved for links that are external to Wikipedia. Links to foreign language wikis are not external links, but are described as "interwiki" links and use a special format  xx:name  where xx is the language code, and name is the name of the page in that language. This creates a box on the left hand side of the screen called languages which lists all the foreign language versions of the page that exist. Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. I did that by putting interwiki links on the left (for Russian and Belarussian version).--Elalpo (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your add for - Added primarysources and prose tags to article. What's "reliable third-party publications." I have tried and did placement from some good internet sources (libraries). Also another of your suggestions - "You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate". All I am trying to do is putting some kind of biography and it's already very difficult for me as I am not thinking very straight, since my dad has just died. I am just doing it in the best way I possibly can. I just wanted to provide some facts.--Elalpo (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tags like this don't demand immediate action, and they don't demand action by you necessarily. Articles on Wikipedia aren't owned by any one person, and anybody can come along and copyedit, or add to the article. The fact that he was your father doesn't make it your article.
 * The tags are because Wikipedia has standards that define what a good article should look like.
 * Firstly, it should have sources that are not self-published. Your father's personal web site and his works are not necessarily objective sources about him. Rather they are how he wanted to present himself to the world. Wikipedia requires a more neutral view, and looks to what people have written about your father rather than what he has written about himself.
 * Secondly, whilst people choose to present their personal websites in a variety of ways, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style (WP:MOS) which sets out how articles should be constructed. One key part of that is that articles should be written in prose, rather than as lists of facts.
 * The tags flag up that the article needs improvement, and invite people to make that improvement. Mayalld (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quacking?
Hi,

Regards this comment, to you mean they are patently obviously a sock, and therefore don't need an investigation? Would you therefore be willing to block, or should this be moved to another venue? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an oblique reference to WP:DUCK. Where sockpuppetry is obvious, CU will be declined. As you will see, the sock has now been blocked. Mayalld (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janaa22
I've added diffs as you have requested. Please let me know if you would like further documentation. There have been a series of socks and anonymous IP edits going after this article. I strongly suspect that some paid company is attempting to manipulate the article since 1) the article originally had a glowing promotional tone, 2) new editors and socks keep popping up as the old ones get booted, and 3) every technique in the book has been used to try and remove any sense of balance: deletion requests, speedy deletion requests, edit warring, OTRS tickets, etc. --Nacl11 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding diffs, which will now be reviewed thoroughly. I would warn, however, that this is unlikely to be a straightforward case to deal with. Whilst it is clear enough that the editors concerned share a common purpose in removing negative content from a particular article, the edits that they are making are supported by policy, in that they are removing negative content from a BLP that is not adequately sourced. Negative BLPs require good sourcing, and sourcing from blogs and from sources such as the Huffington Post don't cut it. Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mayalld, for looking into this as it has been a chronic problem. The material in question does not contain references to blogs or the Huffington Post.  These are the sources:


 * Wayne, Leslie (July 2, 2008). "Thing to Do in Denver; For Conventioneers, a Conference". New York Times.


 * Husted, Bill (July 8, 2008). "Well-to-do conventioneers could be seeing stars". Denver Post.


 * Wayne, Leslie (July 11, 2008). "Attention, Spacey Fans". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?


 * Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (July 22, 2008). "Democrat calls off convention conference". Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/371e2b50-583e-11dd-b02f-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacl11 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at several of the diffs that are in the sockpuppetry case, and the fact that some references are to blogs and the Huffington Post is glaringly obvious. I don't deny that there may be some reliable sources in there, but the first impression is of a lot of non-RS referencing. Mayalld (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My last reply was a very polite way of saying that you misspoke. It was a good opportunity to correct yourself.  To be more clear - I strongly urge you to review the contested material again and determine whether, in its present form, there are any references to the Huffington Post or blogs.  Moreover, a close look at the article history will reveal that the issue of proper sourcing came up a few weeks ago and it had been addressed to the satisfaction of most involved.  I'm not sure how it is relevant to the present issue of sockpuppets, and I'm not sure why you mentioned it present tense as part of your sockpuppet report.  The current edit issue involves the removal of material cited to the New York Times, the Financial Times, and the Denver Post.  More importantly, the current sockpuppet issue (where I hope you'll help) involves repeated attempts by the same person or persons to remove cited content again and again and again.  Thanks. --Nacl11 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is relevant, because much of the evidence of sockpuppetry put forward is evidence of various IDs removing negative material that was sourced from unreliable sources. If the material is now better sourced, all well and good, but the fact remains that many of the edits that you rely on to show socking actually show the removal of poorly sourced negative BLP Mayalld (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

CU request
Hi Mayalld. I saw your response to the sockpuppet request I made (Sockpuppet investigations/SANTO GOLD). I don't object to the case being declined, but I am confused by your statement. You said, "the comment at UAA was that it should be raised as an SPI case, NOT that SPI with CU was required." The comment at UAA was a recommendation to check for "any other related/sleeper accounts". I'm not that familiar with checkuser, but I took this to mean to request checkuser because I'm not aware of any other way to check for related or sleeper accounts. Am I misunderstanding something? Deli nk (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that there was a strong behavioural link between the accounts, we can look for other related accounts just by looking who is adding the same content. Mayalld (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the clarification.  Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: 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

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead Horse accusations.
User:Ratel and User:Cameron Scott are continuing repeated accusations of sock at User_talk:Emely1219. I suggested to them that such is improper when absolutely no real evidence was educed at Sockpuppet_investigations/Karelin7/Archive according to a very wise person. I think 2 weeks between accusations on a person with about 25 total edits, only 5 of which were on the article at issue seems a bit much, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example of such attitudes, you might look at wherein one of them shows his true colours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you know, you completely stripped out the context - that barnstar is one that created especially by a disgruntled editor to give to me, it is currently [ at MFD] (an MFD I have had no involvement in) and you voted keep as it was as it is "just a bit of fun". On those grounds, as it was just a bit of fun, I couldn't see you having a problem with receiving one. Oh and if you have complaints about me, it's sorta nice if you know, you told *me* rather than try and stick in the knife in my back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No "knife in back" Had you intended "fun" you might have deleted "fuck" and the like from the template you used (which you used instantly after I posted here), and you should also note that I suggested your iteration of sock allegations two weeks after they were dismissed was unwise. I assumed therefore that you were killing two birds with one expletive. And it does possibly appear you did, indeed, check my contributions history before you posted on my page, thus finding this post. What we have, therefore, is a splendid example of auto-utile petards on your behalf. Collect (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)