User talk:Nixeagle/Archive/2009/April

A question about talk page abuse
There seems to be a lot of discussion on the 2008 South Ossetia war page which doesn't seem to have anything to do with improving the article. Instead, many talk page sections contain nothing more than personal opinions, unsourced speculation and discussion of other editors. I'm asking, is it possible, and would it be a good idea to start removing such sections, since all they seem to do create even more tensions, personal attacks and other incidents? Offliner (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Filter 46
Please see User_talk:Xaosflux. Thanks! — xaosflux  Talk  03:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/61
Question: It looks like the way you're counting the refs pools them altogether. In other words, your filter code wouldn't be triggered if someone removed "" and added a " " in the same edit because the code isn't comparing the individual changes of similar tags. If this is true, could you fix that? - Mgm|(talk) 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will... good thought.


 * Thanks, please drop me a line when you've done it. - Mgm|(talk) 23:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * already done. :) ——  nix eagle email me 23:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USSoccerCulture
Appreciate the feedback. I was a little rash and was frustrated by his edits. Next time I'll try to help the new guys out a little more.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Locke cole
Hi there Nixeagle. I just saw your block of Locke cole. As it happens, I've protected the page now anyway. My concern is that Locke got tag teamed good and proper and it's not really fair he got blocked for this. Yup, he went over 3RR, but the only reason why only he did was because 3/4 users from the other side of the dispute ganged up to keep their changes. I'd personally say unblock Locke and let everyone calm down whilst the page is protected.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He also did self-revert as his last edit. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI I've cleared the autoblock already for you. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks I was wondering why I could not find it! ——  nix eagle email me 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did unblock him btw, basically per Ryan, however I did ask him not to edit the pool for 24 hours after the protection lifts. ——  nix eagle email me 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was actually six times in 35 minutes, and eight over the past 24 hours at the same page. In addition, he wiped a warning about 3RR during this period on his talk page. I'd like to know how he was ganged up on. He utterly refused to discuss the problematic section after an invitation earlier today to do so at the talk page. We are all left wondering why there is one rule for Locke Cole and another for everyone else. I was about to report this mega-3RR to ANI .... Tony   (talk)  17:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I unblocked at another administrator's request. The fact is there are at least 3 editors editing disruptively. There seems to be lots of disruptive reverts going on in addition to Locke reverting. It looks like Ryan protected it regardless... which was not what I was planning to do but I'm just going to trust that he knows what he is doing. ——  nix eagle email me 18:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I supported the idea of a block (but didn't do it myself due to being involved) - but wasn't five days a bit long? I would have set it to 12 hours, or maybe 24. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I had the block time wrong, I did 5 days because his last block for disruptiveness was a week so he should have known, Regardless it does not matter now. ——  nix eagle email me 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK bot
What's the status of the bot? It's been 3 months since it has edited. We really need this bot to be running! It would be real helpful on days like April Fool's - we need to do lots of updates that day and a bot would be extremely helpful. Can someone else work on it?  Royal broil  12:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Signature
Yeah, I've changed the size. But I feel that you could have been courteous enough to inform me before changing it.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No probs. :-)- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 05:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List questions
Should I be asking you or MZMcBride about the list? User talk:Nixeagle/BLPPotential. I'll ask him as well. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to talk to mzmcbride about problems with the list generation, all I did was take his output and put it in a human readable format... so we can all work on it. ——  nix eagle email me 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bravenet Speedy
Hi there. I see that you deleted Bravenet Web Services back in 2006. You probably weren't aware at the time that it had recently survived an AfD as No Consensus. Do you think it should be restored for this reason? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I see the AFD covered more then one article and occured 6 months before my deletion as a G11 spam article. I made my determination based on the fact that it only refereneced itself and spoke in a somewhat promotional manner. The deletion is about 1.5 years old, the AFD is at least over 2 years old. Is this company any more notable then it was at the time? (Out of curiosity). Regardless I'd be glad to undelete to your userspace and let you make the determination to move it or not. At the very least it needs its external links section stripped of most of the links there, and a few refereneces to other reliable sources. The article in the present state is unsourced excepting the companies own website... but anyone can say anything online ;). ——  nix eagle email me 02:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue as to current notability -- I came across it from DreamHost, which was also part of that AfD. Google News doesn't show anything recent. I don't think there's any point in userfying it -- I'm not going to put the effort into saving it. I was just objecting on procedural grounds, as I didn't think it was correct to speedy something that survived an AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'll put it this way, process aside nobody has cared about the topic in the last 18 months which seems to me to be a fairly good indicator of notability. You are only caring because of some standard of process, not out of a actual desire to state that its notable. The AFD was not a keep choice, but simply "no consensus" which defaulted to keep.
 * Now again my offer to undelete stands if someone wishes to improve it to a decent state. The article is two paragraphs, most if not all of it is taken from press materials. At the time I saw it as blatant spam due to the external linking and claims made without backing them up with reliable sources. These days I could nominate the article for deletion and it would get deleted based on the lack of sources and lack of notability. It likely would not pass G11 these days as it is not blatant promotion. However the article lacks any secondary reliable sources whatsoever. The problem here of course is the deletion is over 18 months old, and the respective AFD is over 2 years old.
 * There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a similar article with 5 minutes of work. There is nothing in the deleted version that is hard to get for example as it was all mostly taken from promotional material on the company's website. ——  nix eagle email me 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blakegripling ph
Blakegripling keeps on unconsidering my edits on Angel Locsin for two times, he said that It was vandalism but its not because he's the one who commits vandalism not me. Im just trying to improved the article but he unconsiders my edits. Can you warn him? Samgel27 (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blakegripling correctly identified Samgel27 as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked/banned User:Gerald Gonzalez and that is why the edits were being undone. --NrDg 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar
I don't understand how this one works. The checkuser confirmed the accounts as being the same, the two accounts have been used to edit-war in tandem, and no blocks are issued? The only reason the checkuser was declined was not because the accounts haven't been used abusively, it's because a previous checkuser already identified the accounts as linked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case it was not clear to me why you re-opened the case, simply say that on the case page and I think the checkusers will double check. ——  nix eagle email me 03:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I screwed up, and didn't notice the original checkuser, because the checkuser was under the checkuser system Requests for checkuser/Case/JuStar, and I forgot to double check it. I found it after the case was open, and commented inside the checkuser that that was the case. From there, it should have proceeded to blocking the accounts when you reviewed it: I provided evidence of abusive socking, and a checkuser run only 60 days ago confirmed the two accounts as matched. What would I put in a new report to keep it from going down the same path? I think the problem dates back to the original checkuser report ... when I look at that report, I can't determine why the accounts weren't blocked at that time.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just make a comment on the existing one that the accounts need blocked (and that a CU should check into that) and link to the relevant cases. Nobody will actually archive a case if there is outstanding things to be done on it. All I did was mark the case as "closed" which means that someone needs to follow up and actually archive, and as I said that won't happen until the accounts are either blocked or not blocked with a reason given. You could even remove the template SPIclose if you like. ——  nix eagle email me 03:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:HotagentX
Hello I am User:HotagentX, I wish to discuss to you about User:Rebelprince a user you block please talk with me so we can discuss things.--HotagentX (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You may post your questions to this talk page if you wish. ——  nix eagle email me 02:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I took the time to see your talk page, by the looks of it you appointed yourself to a fictional role, but aside from that, you can see the reason why tayler and the sock were blocked at Sockpuppet_investigations/Tylerwade123/Archive. ——  nix eagle email me 02:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I already read it and I believe that the case has to be discussed again as a lot of things were not discussed please get back to me when you do because I believe that this user needs to be unblock.--HotagentX (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mwalla is back I think
Hello, sorry to trouble you. User:Julcal I strongly suspect is Mwalla. They are apparently brand new to wikipedia, but appear to like editing antidepressant articles and ihaving conversations in the middle of articles, inserting nonsense. They also show up on the benzodiazepine article where I am editing, another coincidence, inserting nonsense and trying to stir up arguments. Here they know terminology such as "bold edit so obviously are not complete newbies to wikipedia but yet they use main article pages as talk pages. On there User_talk:Julcal talk page I see they are creating unnotable article pages again. Here, inserting nonsense into an article. On the surface it looks like someone innocently trying to improve wikipedia but Mwalla as you know does this follows people about and trys to insert nonsense into articles but subtly as if they are improving the article. I initially replied to them here, Talk:SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome thinking they were an innocent editor who was mistaken but then when I saw the same editor editing the benzodiazepine article in a dubious manner I then got suspicious and checked their contribs and I strongly suspect that they are Mwalla. Notice here, they know all about userboxes and here but yet are a new user who innocently uses main articles as talk pages? ,     Here again using main article as talk page  starting frivilous arguments and debates over nothing. Another cooincidence is their edits seem to have gotten them into conflict with anon 70.137.xxx.xxx who you will remember was a person who had problems with Mwalla before. See User_talk:70.137.165.53. Apparently some editor who I don't know, has already warned them that they might be blocked, so already they are starting to annoy the community. I would be very very surprised if this is not Mwalla. What shall we do? I will also send this to Versageek incase you don't log on for a while. Ya know I wouldn't mind so much if they were block evading, it is just the silly games and unconstructive edits, antagonising people subtly is why I am annoyed.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know how to send an e-mail.
Dear Administrator,

This is regarding the charges laid against me and my recently submitted defense. It is posted in full on the relevant page.

I would very kindly and respectfully…but also very strenuously…point out that the charges of sock puppetry seemingly arise from instances that did not benefit my POV in any way. Most of the edits in question seem bizarre and with no reason, at least while operating under the notion that they are made all by one person.

From what I could tell even the supposed sock puppet accounts, which are not mine, did not engage in a real edit war. I could not find one example of a 3R violation. (This is what makes an edit war and edit war, no?)

I do not know what started all of this but I feel that I am largely innocent. All of this has sapped the joy of being an editor here. Now I can only assume that I interacted with someone’s sock puppet, got in the middle of something by accident and am now paying the price. When I do make edits, I try to follow the rules to the best of my ability and to the best of my understanding.

Thank you. And thank you in advance to any help that you could provide to me in this matter.

N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuada79 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What case is this? I'm curious, though I won't promise it will mean I review it any faster. Regardless please post your statement on the case page not on my talk page :) Thanks. ——  nix eagle email me 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New Jersay sock
Opinion? again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The case will be reviewed in due time. I'm very busy at the moment and I am taking up random cases as I have time. ——  nix eagle email me 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's ok. I'm just not sure about the wait-time on sock reports. It's been 7 days. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

SPI
I updated this. I forgot to put E in there also. It is a clear SPA, and was created immediate after the previous SPA was deleted. The ban evasion would possibly be impossible to hunt down, but it is likely "he who shall not be named but will move your page to something nasty regardless if you actually mention it or not" if you get my drift. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah don't talk in riddles, I'm assuming you mean grawp, if not please say who you think it is. Don't take WP:DENY to the extent that its impossible to collaborate. ——  nix eagle email me 03:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page, also, note this. The problem with the name creation is that the page cannot be protected as it is an RfA and it would disrupt the process. A range block would be the only clear way to try and stop it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)