User talk:Richwales/Archives/2016-04

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

sfarney question
I just found these edits on my user page:
 * (cur | prev) 07:17, 19 January 2016‎ Richwales (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,317 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (null edit; previous deletion / revdel was per Ticket:2016011810021064) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 07:13, 19 January 2016‎ Richwales (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,316 bytes) (-4,719)‎ . . (reverted attack material that doesn't belong on a user page) (thank)
 * (cur | prev) 23:07, 18 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,035 bytes) (+295)‎ . . (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 21:54, 18 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,740 bytes) (+1,003)‎ . . (edit summary removed) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 20:36, 18 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,737 bytes) (+3,421)‎ . . (edit summary removed) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 21:13, 8 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,316 bytes) (+129)‎ . . (edit summary removed) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 20:12, 8 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,187 bytes) (-614)‎
 * (cur | prev) 20:04, 8 January 2016‎ Sfarney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,801 bytes) (+614)‎ . . (edit summary removed) (Tag: Visual edit)

I have never noticed this history before -- the home page looks to me now just as it has for months. What has happened here? Do you have any recall? I sure don't. Any help you can offer appreciated. Grammar's Li'l Helper 19:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Some material was added to your user page last January — apparently by you — listing a series of legal allegations against the Cult Awareness Network. Someone (not you, and not me) saw this material and reported it to the Oversight team.  In my capacity as a member of the Oversight team, I removed and revision-deleted this material, because this really wasn't something that belonged on a user page.  I didn't "suppress" or "oversight" it; rather, I did a "revision deletion", which makes the material invisible except to administrators.  The material in question may possibly be appropriate for the Cult Awareness Network article, provided of course that it strictly conforms to the Biographies of Living Persons policy.  I see that you have done a lot of editing on the CAN article (I glanced at the page's revision history, but I have not taken a look at exactly what changes you've made) — and again, material relevant to this organization may be proper there — it just doesn't belong on a user page.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha! thanks. Yes, that must have been an edit that really belonged on my sandbox, and should have been deleted immediately.  Thanks for cleaning up. Grammar's Li'l Helper 20:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Trackteur
Last night you closed the Trackteur SPI as no action, owing to lack of evidence from a single edit. However there were two socks active there, one an IP. That seems to have been forgotten. It's a fairly obvious sock, it was blocked once, then came straight back one that block expired.

Trackteur was blocked for disruption, since then has used 3 or 4 socks to get round that block, yet the original block hasn't even been extended once. It was reset a couple of times, now it's not even getting that. Why is WP being so lenient on such a troublesome sock? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP address was blocked last week, for 2 weeks (so the current block will expire on the 29th). There are limits to what we can do with misbehaving anonymous editors — by general policy, IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely, since they could be dynamic addresses and eventually be used by other people — and the CheckUser policy almost always forbids the public linking of an IP address to an account.  If this particular IP address resumes disruptive editing after the current block expires, then a new and longer block (not indefinite, but longer than 2 weeks) would certainly be in order.  My comment about "a new account with only one edit" referred specifically and exclusively to Lectorina, whose one and only edit was 11 days ago.  I stand by my unwillingness to brand this account based solely on a single edit, especially given the lack of any confirming CheckUser evidence.  However, I concede that there is at least some degree of probable cause to suspect this account, and if Lectorina starts editing again, his/her/its editing behaviour would certainly be open to review.  If you see any more suspicious activity that appears to be from this same sockmaster (Trackteur), by all means please report it and we can reopen the SPI case.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Andy's point is not to block the IP for longer or to block Lectorina but to increase the block length of the master based on behavioral evidence of continuing sock puppetry (let's assume just by the IP).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. As it is, Trackteur can sock away happily to no consequence.
 * I still think Trackteur is, an infamous and disruptive sock. That SPI went nowhere, which is fair enough, but Trackteur was then blocked for their own edit warring, of itself. If they continue to sock to get round that block, that's a problem.
 * I don't care about Lectorina - the clearest evidence for them being a sock is when they're discarded without complaint after their single recognised edit.
 * SPI is being hugely inconsistent here between Trackteur and Biscuittin, who is receiving the full-blown wikilynching treatment. OS does indeed E, but we ought to have some level of consistency in how we police disruption. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done checks of Tobias Conradi's socks in the past, and they are ❌ to Trackteur (agreeing with ).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * After further consideration, I'm going to block indefinitely, until/unless he/she makes it extremely clear that he/she is ready to contribute constructively and follow the rules.  The primary reason I am doing this is because of Trackteur's continued distruptive activity after being blocked, which has resulted in his/her block being extended and/or reset several times in recent weeks.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. No doubt they'll be back, but their style makes it readily obvious and this precedent makes it easier to deal with them. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your name on GOCE list of possible reviewers
"Nitpicking proofreading isn't always fun, but someone's got to do it." My edits over the last two months have added two new sections to the Jane Austen article and it looks like it is ready to go through a top to bottom reading and review before it is sent to full nomination if you might be game. Tim Riley did the GA though he is away on Wikibreak for several months from now and he can't do it at this time. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)