User talk:JamesBWatson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk

  • If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and let me know, by pinging me there, or if you prefer by dropping a note on this page. (I make scarcely any use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.)
  • If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will ping you to let you know.
  • Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked.
Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message.
  • After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Next meetups in North England[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Unfortunately I will be away at the date of the Manchester one, and I'm unwilling to go as far as Liverpool for a meetup. Leeds is more possible, but I didn't go. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fishy articles[edit]

"James", there are a number of articles being produced about various fish, which purport to come from a number of different editors. You have removed linkspam from one or two. The articles are all in the same format - an infobox ,and a small number of paragraphs, each of only a few words, giving the common name of the fish, distribution, etc. The article titles are the latin taxonomic names of the fish. This must surely all be the work of one editor. Calling it sockpuppetry is only marginally correct, as the articles are edited only by one editor and, apart from being excessively short, are not controversial. Some have been CSD labeled, which is not an accurate connotation. Any thoughts? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I agree that the word "sockpuppet" is questionable, though at least one of the accounts was created while another one was blocked, no doubt to evade the block, so I suppose that one at least is a sockpuppet. Also, whether intentionally or not, an effect of using so many accounts is to evade scrutiny, as editors seeing the unhelpful editing of one account and not seeing all the messages sent to the other accounts treat it as a new editor who does not know how Wikipedia works, rather than as a persistent disruptive editor who is ignoring numerous messages about the problems with his or her editing. The WP:CSD#A1 (no context) speedy deletions (at least the ones I have seen) are not really valid, as it is clear what the articles are about: namely particular species of fish. The creator of the articles has explicitly described his or her intention as "to bring up publicity through wikipedia", so there is no doubt that the purpose is spamming. Apart from the spam links, though, the articles, although very poorly written, do no harm, and to have an article giving a few bare facts such as the Latin taxonomical name is perhaps more useful than not having an article at all, so I'm not inclined to delete them. Now that I have blocked a couple of the accounts indefinitely, though, if any more are created it will be block-evasion, and I will be willing to consider deleting them. There are still 114 articles with links to the spammed site (down from 533 when I checked yesterday), and I think all 114 of them should be removed; the only reason I haven't done them is that there is a limit to the time I am willing to spend on it in a day. Also, if any more links to the same site appear, then it should go on the spam blacklist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for ploughing through this lot - I wasn't sure what was to happen with these over-headlined stubs. If they are to be kept (minus BEDO link), I can make a start on condensing them into one para (by rolling up the blocked editor's contrib list from the bottom). Elmidae (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Elmidae: If you are willing to put the work in, that will be very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, will get on it (tomorrow - yawn :) --Elmidae (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, a link search now shows the spam link on 218 pages, instead of 114. However, I have looked at a substantial sample of the pages, and none of them has had the link added since I checked and found 114. Linksearch sometimes seems to miss a lot of pages, for no obvious reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


okay thank you for the respond. but what do i write first before i beging the page? like

{{notability} } {{model } } | name = |birth_name etc ???


Range block[edit]

Would you discuss about the possibility of a range block? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I will certainly discuss it if you let me know what range, and why it should be blocked. However, right now I am out of time, so I will not be able to follow this up at least for several hours, and perhaps not until tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A week ago, I happened to discover the real master of 3 suspected socks that are now blocked by Elockid.[1][2][3] Upon my findings,[4] I have realized that there is problem with the IP addresses. You sure remember [5][6], Gilliam had blocked one of these[7] for 1 year with the summary {{blocked proxy}}. 216.81.81/94 is the particular extension that is abused by this editor. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@OccultZone: You seriously overestimate my memory if you can write "You sure remember.." and link to blocks I made nearly three years ago. No, I don't remember them at all. However, I have spent some time looking at the history of the range you mention, and have come to the following conclusions.
The IP range is allocated to the United States Department Of Homeland Security. I can find no evidence that any IP address in the range is hosting an open proxy: if one was in January 2014, at the time of Gilliam's block, then it does not seem to be still doing so now. The smallest blockable IP range that covers all the IP addresses you mention would be (i.e. everything from to Since the beginning of 2014, that range has produced 1357 edits, at an average rate of 88 per month. I have checked a fairly substantial sample of recent edits, and a smaller sample of older ones. A few of the edits I checked were unconstructive in one way or another (as for example this sequence of three vandalism edits) but the substantial majority were perfectly constructive. Also, none of the few unconstructive edits I saw were very recent, and there is no point in blocking because of past problems which are not continuing. I did not see any recent edits which in any way resembled the editing which led to the blocks you mentioned three years ago, so those are irrelevant as far as considering any new block is concerned. The Sockpuppet investigation you link to has links to edits from this IP range, but those edits date back to 2012. The overall conclusion of all that is that I don't see any grounds at all for any block now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
And you can block the individual IPs that are used by this editor? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

User:CosmicEmperor made his first Wikipedia edit a couple of months back by stating in his userpage - "My Username is LoverBoyInGarden . I don't remember my password and i didn't register anu E-Mail so i am unable to access . I had no other choice . So I created a new accountFrost The World (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" ([8]). A sock of User:Undertrialryryr took over the account User:Frost The World for short while. User:LoverBoyInGarden made a total of 4 edits, though his talk page and user page was regularly edited by CosmicEmperor.

The CosmicEmperor's userpage was repeatedly vandalized by another sock of Undertrialryryr - like User:Fawadkhooburat ([9]) - and a number of IPs. I met him on Talk:Bengali people where he behaved most erratically, probably charged with emotions. He did not like my stand and my rebuke, but was unable to take strong stand. So, he created yet another account - User:কসমিক এম্পারার, and came to call names on my talk page. Even in the discussion on Bengali people talk page another sock of Undertrialryryr - User:Universal tiger - made an appearance.

I am sorry to be slightly uncomfortable at this bizarre story. I really couldn't help noticing that the socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive have modus operandi similar to CE. And, I was also not very surprised to notice the similarities between names like CosmicEmperor and Universal tiger. I hope this is not some kind of juvenile game. Can you give me any advise? Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

[added] BTW, this looks like another attempt to discredit CosmicEmperor. User:কসমিক এম্পারার has been blocked. If he needs guidance, please intervene. My level of patience is totally useless for this kind of stuff. Aditya(talkcontribs) 11:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Already blocked. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: If you are trying to suggest that CosmicEmperor is a sockpuppet, then all I can say is that I don't see any evidence for the suggestion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No. He is the butt end of a very strange joke, which involves strangest of vandalism and other disruption by a number of socks of the same puppet-master. Probably that has reduced his aversion to multi-accounts lower than the average, and he keeps creating and abandoning accounts. Worse than that, the strangeness of the vandalism has probably also got him a into a competitive mood. A nice rundown on identifying and handling socks and vandals may be good for him.
As for me, I am just stunned at the bizarreness of events. Aditya(talkcontribs) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And, I was also not very surprised to notice the similarities between names like CosmicEmperor and Universal tiger.

Aditya Kabir Even I couldn't stop myself, and noticed the similarities between the names 115ash and AHLM13 . Similar statements by AHLM13 and 115ash .Both taking part in talk page discussion of Bengali people --CosmicEmperor (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The whole of this thread consists largely, as far as I can make out, of vague hints that various accounts are sockpuppets, without ever making it really clear to me what the evidence is, and in some cases without even making it clear what account is accused of being a sockpuppet of what other account. I have wasted quite a lot of my time looking at the editing of the accounts referred to, without coming to any clear understanding. I suggest that anyone who believes there is sockpuppetry going on take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocks[edit]

Hi. I notice you recently blocked SeeSpot Run due to sockpuppetry, and I see he's challenging it. I also note that WP:SOCKBLOCK says "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." What can you do if you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry? You can't request an unblock from a "main" account that isn't yours. I can't really make up my mind whether it is a sock, there is circumstantial evidence for sure, but is that enough? I'd be interested to hear if this scenario is common, and what on earth we can do about it, if anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. On the general point about editors wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry, there are genuine problems, to which there are no perfectly satisfactory solutions. It is often difficult or impossible to provide evidence that one is not a sockpuppet. I'm afraid there is no magical way of settling such an issue: it's a question of weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion about what is most likely.
  2. On the particular question of whether this account is a sockpuppet, there are many similarities, of various different kinds. If the similarities were all of one kind (such as editing articles on one particular topic) then I would not regard them as convincing, but when there are different types of similarity, with no reason why a pair of editors with one of those similarities should also have another one of them, it begins to look suspicious, and when there are many completely unrelated types of similarity, it begins to look more than just suspicious. In my opinion the sum of all the evidence is very convincing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably Socks[edit]

Yes, it looks quite likely. I have asked them about their connections to one another, and I'll keep an eye on them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I just started a report see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Officialsite.400049. Wgolf (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I was coming here myself re the User:Arwajhussains userpage, when I noted this section.
I added a 'userpage' template to it, which was then removed without comment by (talk · contribs). (I have reverted) I had already noted that the page included the unsourced claims that this editor had a 3 year relationship and was now married to Shraddha Sharma, a page that seems to have attracted a large number of 'fanboy' SPAs. I have removed the unsourced claims, from Arwajhussains userpage - 220 of Borg 03:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that at best the page was misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, and at worst a hoax. I also saw that the user Arwajhussains has stated that he or she is not Arwaj Hussain, but a "fan" of Arwaj Hussain, which means that the page is not about the editor whose user page it is, reinforcing the view that is was misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Consequently, I have deleted the page. I am also unhappy with the other editing that Arwajhussains has done: much of it looks rather like adding fantasy content to an article and then removing it. I have give Arwajhussains a message expressing my concerns, and I hope that he or she will take note. I have broadly similar concerns about the other accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mahendra Niraula[edit]

You surprise me a bit with blocking User:Mahendra Niraula as sockpuppeteer. Not that he needs any mercy but on what evidence did you do that? The Banner talk 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner: To be precise, I didn't block the account: it was already blocked, and I just recorded the fact that the account has used a sockpuppet. The evidence included: the sockpuppet making an unblock request using very similar wording to an unblock request of the master account; the sockpuppet being a single purpose account, exclusively editing an article that the blocked account had created; both accounts showing similar idiosyncrasies in use of English; the sockpuppet having a user name which referred to the place where Mahendra Niraula has said that he lives; the sockpuppet making an unblock request which related to an autoblock which appeared to result from the block on Mahendra Niraula; and so on... Altogether too many coincidences to be plausibly just chance. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Banner: I now realise that I was mistaken in thinking the block was indefinite, so I have changed the user-page tag. The editor may wish to remove it if and when he is unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

requesting self block[edit]

I want a self block for 4 years. Seeing that you dont have your own personal criteria I want this block right now without furthur discussion A.A.Wasif | Talk 14:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive user[edit]

The vandal is back with an account: Editor do Futebol Português (talk · contribs) (English: Portuguese Football editor). SLBedit (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Busy Moose[edit]

From the CU results it appears that is also one of Busy Moose's,[10] especially after the edit by Wryersog, one of the confirmed socks.[11] Something to watch out for. --AussieLegend () 18:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Shining Time Station[edit]

Hello I noticed it said you locked that said article and the expiration ended in November 2014 but it still shows up when you go and edit. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you check the log carefully, you will see that the move protection was set to expire on 23 November 2014, but the edit protection was indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops, My Bad. I am sorry. --ACase0000 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)