User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/March

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Aetempleton
They are all yours if you wish :-) I have no interest whatsoever in those issues and get dragged there only because of AIV. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock?
Hello, at a much earlier timing you BLOCKED User:Eddstonham for being a sock of User:User Eddstonham... I'm shocked~! Was there a SPI for that? If yes, can I be directed there so that I can take a look at the case? Thanks. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 15:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We both know
Are you insinuating that I'm a liar? I stand by what I say. Don't lump your views together with mine. We don't both know. Please speak for yourself. --Gilabrand (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you were blocked for it, so I guess we did both know. SGGH ping! 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

May I please ask you to review?
wp:administrators, and in particular the very first paragraph that clearly states: "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." It was a bad and unwarranted call on your part. You've misused your administrative tools. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I was not involved in any dispute. The user in question had violated the sanction against him (or her). I informed them of this, they disagreed but another admin issued a block. The blocked user used his or her talk page to attack another user violating WP:NPA so for the period of blocking I forbade that user from using their talk page as a weapon. Good day to you. SGGH ping! 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure you were. Just review the post above that one.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, however I am happy for another admin to review the decision, and if consensus reads that it should be changed then I am happy to change it. As it has now been raised by yourself at ANI, let another admin make a judgement there. SGGH ping! 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi SGGH ! As you gave your input about 86.162.18.140 / KirkleyHigh, I want to show you this : this. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Frank Vigar
Are you taking this to GA?  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Moo
Check your IMs. --Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 12:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) And again. Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 10:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: SPI
In answer to the first question: If the accounts haven't been around since December the 31st 2009 then it's generally not worth submitting a case. It should be borne in mind that blocks should be preventive, not punitive, so unless there is a strong reason to suspect that the operator is still editing then it's probably not worth submitting the case. That said, the accounts may still be blocked if it was highly conclusive that they were socks of each other, since sockpuppetry involves ongoing disruption as long as one is operating multiple accounts. Also note that if the page they were editing was about a company then they may simply be associates, in which case SPI would not be appropriate for reporting them. In answer to the second question: if the account you suspect to be a sock is still active then it's probably worth opening an SPI, however, there must be strong evidence to link it to the account that you suspect to be the operator, and if you want to request checkuser with the case then the operators account will need to have edited within 2010. If they haven't edited since then, then you can still submit the case without a checkuser request. Sorry if all this is a bit vague, please let me know if you want anything clarifying or if you need further information. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all very helpful. Thanks Spitfire. SGGH ping! 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 07:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Paintface
I note that you've recently blocked this user for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Justin Berg. I thought you'd be interested to know that I've just blocked User:83.101.30.147 for being used to evade that block. Frankly, this area is a little out of my expertise; if there is something I should have done, or should not have done, I would welcome your comments. And, of course, if you feel that I've erred in my judgment, please feel free to undo any of my actions; I know you have more experience in these areas than I do. Thanks in advance for any comment you'd care to offer. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology
Hi, there is something needs to be clarified and, now that the picture is virtually complete, I wish to apologise to you for a misunderstanding that arose because of information I received from a well-meaning person who was mistaken.

You may have noticed that I have had my problems with an individual using dynamic IP addresses. If not, don't worry and I won't bore you with the turgid details. Someone who I will not name contacted me by e-mail and provided some contributions info which seemed to indicate that SGGH may be the person who has been chasing me around. Unfortunately, I reacted to this and put a sarcastic comment into the Blackmore AfD, this comment potentially implicating three people including yourself.

Fortunately, I was then contacted by someone else who rightly asked what the hell I was doing and, in the ensuing discussion, pointed out that the real culprit is the former HampshireCricketFan, whom I had totally forgotten. I was one of a few people who got him blocked last year because of abusive edits. This person then appeared, right on cue, in the Blackmore AfD and the argument has spilled over into admin discussion pages. But it has solved the mystery and I now know who has been trying to cause trouble.

It remains for me to unreservedly apologise to you for any embarrassment or inconvenience that I may have inadvertently caused you. Jack | talk page 12:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello again. First, thanks for your kind words earlier. Second, yes, I saw the ANI as I was checking the one I submitted previously and I've responded accordingly. I suppose I should not have lost my cool but being called a "compulsive liar" is the limit. All the best. Jack | talk page 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fairness
In all fairness BJ seems to think everyone is me! I can only think this is a complex. Just looking and allowing for quick counting he seems to have accused about 25 - 30 addresses as being sockpuppets including longstanding users. It seems a shame that so many of you put so much faith in his knowledge. This dictatorial world that exists in WP is becoming a laughing stock and not only on the pages of private eye. The errors in his early cricket work have been detailed in print by serious historians - you know people who publish books that people buy in shops.Rosebank2 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

About Warring
Dear Mr. SGGH, I won't deny that the issue between Mr. Shmayo and I have been emotional. As for my comment, I apologize. Such comments shouldn't be written be educated people. I apologize again. Best Regards, --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Amaras Monastery
Hello,

Thanks for semi-protecting the above and other article. But person will not stop vandalizing page, albeit now through his personal "established" account and no longer IP. Could you please review it?

Stepanakertsi (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI about Armenia-Azerbaijan, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery, Amaras Monastery
Hi! As you're the one who (rightly imho) decided to semi-protect these two articles, I just thought I would let you know this: new reverts and  by ... Sardur (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will let that to regular users, as I'm not very familiar with such proceedings here (I'm from WP:fr). Imho, these articles could be protected, not only semi-protected.
 * Anyway, thanks for your answer! Sardur (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)