User talk:Nixeagle/Archive/2009/March

Procedure
I have created Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks (2nd) but I am not sure I used the right procedure. Is it correctly listed ? Wizzy&hellip; &#9742; 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI bot
The bot doesn't seem to like this one; Sockpuppet investigations/Blogging4truth

It was filed with a CU request, but didn't get listed for clerk approval.

I endorsed it, and it didn't list it for CU

I moved the bloody thing manually, and on the next edit it removed it back to the non-CU queue.

I'm at a loss!

Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor
Hi Nixeagle,

Thanks for helping to look into this (highly probable) sockpuppet. He has continued to revert edits using his IP address; this is turning into a good-hand/bad-hand, as JeffJor appears to be possibly too fervent, but nonetheless a good-faith contributor, while the IP address users simply revert anything Jeff disagrees with despite consensus. It's disrupting attempts to improve the article; the IP user has repeatedly started editing wars, against multiple other (named) editors, and never justified a single one. We could work towards a consensus if the edit-warring IP user would identify himself--and the overwhelming evidence is that it is JeffJor--but he is not willing to make that admission. How could this best be resolved? --98.235.87.201 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am "unwilling to make that admission" because it simply isn't true. I want to improve the article, and there seems to be consensus that it is badly in need of improvement. But I am waiting until I can get some agreement about what is, and is not, part of the paradox before making any more edits on the article about the paradox. I admit I don't know how to trace IP addresses, but it appears to be possible: someone said the sock puppet addresses are from Japan. Mine are not. That should be enough to verify that it is not me. And the only evidence linking me with it is completely circumstancial, which is hardly "overwhelming."

Nixeagle, I'm willing to do whatever I can to help clear this up. Just help me to learn what that is. JeffJor (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I now see that there is a tag added to the case file that says "From a CU perspective, JeffJor (talk · contribs) is Unrelated to all the IP listed at the top. -- lucasbfr talk 17:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)" and that the case is closed. I'm assuming that that is enough, and that people (except maybe the user who is actually employing the sock puppets, and who I assume added the above accusation) will stop? JeffJor (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet blocking
Recently, you blocked for using a sock puppet to get sway a consensus in his favor. Well, a new editor has shown up (since Feb. 12), and his mannerisms appear to mirror Sha's almost exactly. This includes editing the same articles, and creating a sandbox for every article that he edits just like Sha would do. It is my belief that Sha has managed to get around his one week block and is editing on this account now. Since you were the blocking admin, I figured I'd inform you of what I believe I have discovered. If I need to take this into a formal session, just let me know and I'll do that.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. I'm not around 24/7 ;) ——  nix eagle email me 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

/16 catching an apparently unrelated IP
User talk:165.134.194.139

That IP address posted an unblock request today. I don't know enough about the specific SPI case that resulted in the range block, so I figured I'd kick it back to you. Protonk (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The related case is Sockpuppet investigations/165.134.208.102. The IP is blocked for vandalism, and is a university. My suggestion would be to ask them to post a request to unblock-en-l and have them create an account for them. Alternatively if you don't agree with the block I did (the case lists all evidence) you are free to lift it. ——  nix eagle email me 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the block is anon only, but account creation is not disabled, so you can tell them to just make an account to bypass the block if you think they are a legit requester. ——  nix eagle email me 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. I didn't know if this might prompt you to change the /16 to a collection of smaller ranges, so I figured I would ask.  I think someone has already told the IP editor that they may register an account. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dance-pop SPI
I started it mainly because I feel most such blocks need consensus behind them, and to avoid any suggestion that I was swinging the tools around willy-nilly. In even a pretty clear-cut case like this, process is important, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't create cases with blocked socks, its just pointless. Process for process's sake is silly. SPI cases are for folks to present evidence and for admins to review said evidence and do something about it, be that pass it on to CU, block, or just close as not enough evidence. ——  nix eagle email me 17:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYKadminBot dead
The bot is dead. Its contribs show it hasn't edited in over two days. Can you get it jump-started? Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will work on it. ——  nix eagle email me 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, what server hosts the bot? Shubinator (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI
I added evidence to Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj.  Grsz 11  18:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:DudeFromWork
Hi.

User talk:DudeFromWork is caught in a hardblock made by you, and has requested unblock. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war
No offense, but I think you have been completely overreacting. I don't think there was an "edit war" going on before you came in, just normal disagreement over content and wordings. Furthermore, there was discussion going on on the talk page. Your actions (locking the page for an extended period of time and making threats on the talk page) have not been helpful. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The editing with accusations and misleading edit summaries is not productive which is why I am watching the article now. I protected the page initially for 3 days but finding that all that happened on the page was more arguing and pointing fingers I figured a few more days for you guys to come to some sort of reasonable compromise on a few of the issues would be helpful. We shall see if it actually is in practice. ——  nix eagle email me 20:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, in a way, with Offliner. The basic problem of the article is neither the source being discussed atm, nor the number of soldiers in South Ossetia, nor any other section of the article. These are just the current topics that are hot, you can check the archives for an huge number of others, who have only one defining characteristic: The edits concerned alter the article in a way that is, or is perceived, as showing one side or the other in a more positive light (be it by changing the way an action is described or adding new actions by either side). The article has always had a high number of reverts, but these alone are not a problem. They merely act as a "marker" to highlight the current controversial topic (the amount of reverts give a good guess on how "hot" it is). As long as there are people discussing contructively on the talk page, the reverts will eventually start converging to a compromise version.
 * The real problem is the way the discussion on the talk page is handled (and unfortunately, this is almost impossible to discuss without discussing editors). If the discussion is conducted in a way that is too inflammatory, reaching a compromise is becomming harder or impossible. I could list the names of those editors whom I feel are seeking compromises (Offliner is among them) and those who do not, but as a better yardstick, I suggest that you look at one or two of the talk page archives and check the way in which editors are discussing. Check who is using degrading remarks, who is claiming opinions as fact, who is bringing sources to back up their statement, who does make wrong claims about other editors. The task is a bit time consuming, but there is only a small number of active editors posting there, so it should not take too long. --Xeeron (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The reverts itself are not a problem. Also, waiting until "consensus" arrives and everyone agrees on everything simply means waiting forever. If you want to stop the perceived "edit wars" you might just as well lock the page for forever. One can only wonder how many improvements have been lost during the time the article was protected. It seems to be the view of many admins that avoiding "edit wars" is more important than anything else (such as letting people improve the article.) IMHO, this view is false and only disruptive to Wikipedia. Offliner (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nixeagle. I think you have been watching Talk:2008 South Ossetia war. I have recently noted poll canvassing by User:HistoricWarrior007 and the user has been warned by a memeber of his "party". Yet, HistoricWarrior007 accuses me of being "liar" and tries to have the discussion (ongoing on the article talk page) continued on my talk page in what I see to be an attempt at harassment. This is not the first case HistoricWarrior007 personally attacks me and other editors who disagree with him (suffice to look through his dialogue with a mysterious IP on his talk page). Could you please warn him against such actions as I'm still reluctunt to report this relatively new user to WP:ANI? Many thanks in advance --KoberTalk 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
About the sockpuppet report against Rockyobody. Is there any way you could take a look at this? As you know the suggested sockpuppeting user has now filed two reporters in retaliation but also edited the original report to remove names from the suspected sockpuppets list, and has also repeatedly removed the suspected sockpuppet template from the user pages. Thank you. JimRDJones (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Info provided
I provided the requested information at --Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet reinvestigation
I put in more information of the Cuddles734 sock puppet investigation. How does it look now? BC6 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My Checkuser
Has there been any movement on this issue? I would really like to see it closed so that I can move on and get some disciplinary action taken against Ratel. CENSEI (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a nice way to go about things isn't it, CENSEI? Not everything is an eye for an eye. Scarian  Call me Pat!  12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have not replied to either user here. Please await the results of the case, another admin referred it to a checkuser. ——  nix eagle email me 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal resurfaces
I fear that User:Thulasi12345 has resurfaced as User:Dark Knight Rider, can you please perform a check user and block both parties? Thanx.

Universal Hero (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a checkuser, please create a new case by following the instructions at WP:SPI. Its not hard and won't take you longer then 5 minutes to do. Thanks ——  nix eagle email me 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

how do you change the color of your signature??QueenofHearts (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)