User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:12, 10 July 2022

This account was previously known as JamesBWatson, but was renamed to JBW on 19 September 2019. Neither James nor Watson is my real name.

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Global unblock

Message:: Please help me:: Dear JBW, First time - the request was not granted - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w09#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff ,

The second request too - was not granted https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w14#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff ,

Third time - It is clear that to file a complaint again 6 days after the second appeal is to disregard the steward's decision, which is similar to vandalism. Serious action should be taken against the Turkish user (nicknamed Kadı) who created this unpleasant situation, perhaps his intention was to block me in advance, so he repeatedly sent block requests without any serious reason. It is like accepting a request by negotiating with someone. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2022-w15#Global_lock_for_E.Imanoff

In a few words, explain what wiki policy was violated:: Incorrect evaluation of sockpoppets and misunderstanding, which is similar to vandalism.

What users are you complaining about? Provide their wiki usernames:: User:Kadı, I want to complain about User:Kadı, please eliminate the injustice and unblock my block

Add any other information that you believe to be relevant for the understanding of this case.: Please read the discussion among the Azerbaijani admins, https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediya:%C4%B0dar%C9%99%C3%A7i_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si#Elshad_Iman_(El%C5%9Fad_%C4%B0man)-%C4%B1n_yanl%C4%B1%C5%9F_olaraq_bloklanmas%C4%B1 because I have admitted my mistake and I ask you to allow me to make my edits and I promise that this will not happen again. I can't edit in English, unfortunately, because I'm blocked.

Please let me use the account E.Imanoff, because I do my editing in Azerbaijani languages articles.

At the moment, I am blocked globally for no good reason. Please take action to get out of the global block.--37.26.39.62 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reputation, which I built for several years, was undermined in one day, which is very bad for me. Please help me open my block or post this discussion on the stewards page so that the wiki community and the stewards can accept my apology and give me another chance as a confessed user. Best regards: Elshad Iman --37.26.39.62 (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking into the history of your accounts, with a view to deciding what will be the best way forward. Unfortunately, it's taking me a very long time, because there's a very extensive history. I also have very little experience of dealing with global locks and the stewards' noticeboard, and so I'm not sure what the right way to deal with it is. For both those reasons it's likely to take some time before I take any action, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring your request. If I don't post here again within 48 hours then please remind me. I realise that having to wait is likely to be frustrating, but it should be a short time in proportion to how long you have already had to wait. JBW (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only hope is you, I'm sorry to bother you, but as you said, I'll write to you to remind you. 37.26.39.62 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBW, You asked to be reminded within 48 hours. Please help me,if they had accepted my request and opened my blog, they would have returned my biggest hobby to me. Wikipedia is valuable and dear to me. Best regards: Elshad Iman--37.26.39.62 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately I can't write anything on the Steward requests/Global page via internet protocol. 37.26.39.62 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JBW, I did not use the account indicated here, it seems to me that this is slander. Each account has its own story, and if you pay attention to this story, you will see that I am accused in vain. Here you should not guess and associate each user with my name. The first account I used was Elshadiman, see his story. The following account is the one I created because I don't use another one anymore, so I did this to change the account name. You can see history in it.

I mean, accounts that are not associated with my name do not belong to me. If we examine the activity history of usernames whose names belong to me, it will be clear that I did not abuse my accounts with the name Elshad Iman, that is, the activity of one account in the history does not coincide with the activity of another account, these are different dates. That is, the activity of one stopped and then another started.

That is, I use Wikipedia not only at home, but also at work, and even at the educational institution where I study. For example, wan ip from an ISP could be used by other users, not just me. I mean Wikipedia editors use a public IP address coming from one ISP at a time. If they investigate what I said, the truth will be revealed. From the history of my last account, it is clear that I was an active patrol of Wikipedia, and, of course, I want to return to my active work. Please HELP --37.26.39.62 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my apologies for the fact that I didn't respond earlier. There were several reasons for that.

As far as I am concerned, I am usually more willing than most administrators to consider unblocking editors if it seems that whatever problems led to the block will not happen again, but I can't unilaterally set aside the opinions of everyone else. I put some time into trying to sort out the history of your accounts, but it was complex and confusing, and much of it was in languages which I don't understand. However, it does seem to me that part of the path which led you to being globally locked was a matter of misunderstandings. If i can sort out clearly enough what happened to be able to see the essential points, without losing them in an ocean of irrelevant detail, I will consider making a case for you. It may actually be easier to initially raise the matter on English Wikipedia, rather than going directly to the stewards, because my very limited experience of stewards' handling of global locks suggests that they may be more willing to consider unlocking if at least one individual project has decided to lift restrictions. Perhaps you can help by doing the following.

List all of the accounts you have used.
Explain briefly how you came to be blocked and locked. Don't give every detaio, and don't dwell on criticising other editors (no matter how much they may deserve criticism) but concentrate on giving enough of an outline so that someone else reading what you say will get the overall picture.
If you think any of the cause of the blocks and lock has been due to errors on your part, please say what those errors were, and what you hope to do differently in future. JBW (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was globally blocked after this edit, I don't understand the reasons given for the block. These users may have used vpn, so they collided with my ip address, which I think is worth investigating. Mr JBW, I think the problem stems from an IP collision. Now I don't know if Meta will confirm it, but it's true. However, I would absolutely beg for an administrator to review my edit and contribution history again. I understand that the technical anti-sock puppetry systems in place are solid and reliable, however I can wholeheartedly put my hands up and say that I have no relation to the accused user in any shape or form. At Ruviki, I applied to the admin page for an encyclopedic article by a non-profit organization at this link. Then I was blocked because I was the puppet account of a globally blocked user. I recently received a warning about unblocking my account - after reading the application here, I realized that Ruviki had blocked me because I was still blocked on Enviki, and this discussion said that a user's account could be opened on Ruviki if Enviki considered the user's block unjustified. I am one of the most active users in Ruviki and you will see it clearly if you look at the history of my Elshad Iman account. Please unblock, I'm not Canvassing with my suckpuppet Elshad Iman and E.Imanoff so it wouldn't be right to keep me on the block for long. I ask you to restore my user rights to my E.Imanoff account. I think something went wrong with my block. I openly demanded that the side profile be banned (later it was identified as socks?) *As I mentioned above, the locking of my account is supposed to be based on the existence of other accounts, but it is necessary to believe that there is a mistake. I am an experienced and helpful user; The admins have given me certain privileges for my contributions in the Azerbaijani language section. Please reconsider the bloc decision. First of all, according to the rules, the indefinite blocking of a user working on Wikipedia should take place only after discussions. But without discussion, I was blocked indefinitely. *I think the problem stems from an IP collision. If I have made any mistakes in my activities, I promise that I will not make any more mistakes. *Since Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) is currently blocked, please let me use the account E.Imanoff, because I do my editing in Azerbaijani languages articles with this profile and I don't need an alternative profile. I would also like to contribute to the English Wikipedia. My goal is to participate in discussions about candidate pages for deletion and to prepare articles by encyclopedic personalities. Please review user activities again and make the right decision. I think if I had the opportunity to stay in Enviki I, in turn, would strictly follow the rules. Thanks in advance! I hope I'm able to be spared a chance in this situation. 89.219.179.69 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JBW, all my recent activity is reflected here. Also, looking at the history, it seems that after discussing Elshad Iman's erroneous block in the thread, the Azerbaijani admins open my block in the Azerbaijani section and allow my edits, even my patrol status is restored again. The request given here is due to the fact that I was globally blocked, but without any reason, and the steward denies the request. The request is made again and the steward rejects the request again, the third time the request was made before 6 days had passed, I already had doubts because there was no good reason to apply again before 6 days had passed, I would say that this request is similar to a preliminary arrangement. 89.219.179.69 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleague JBW, I hope you can help me. I only hope for you. Cheers 89.219.178.163 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I am literally crawling to solve this issue. There is also a discussion here after my e-mail application. Given the last chance i would follow strict rules. Once again, please help me with this problem that has arisen. Best regards: Elshad Iman 89.219.178.163 (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JBW, I know I bother you by writing so often, but I need your support in this discussion. 89.219.178.163 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a vandal (or not?)

Hi JBW, not sure where to reply to your ping so acknowledging it (and the report here). Nice way to land from holidays, héhé. Will address this in due course, please bare with me, seems there’s a lot going on at that page. Cheers! PierreLsn (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PierreLsn: Since the message where I pinged you has gone, this is probably the best place to reply. The only reason I pinged you was as a courtesy, so that you would know about the "vandalism" report about you. I haven't looked again at either your editing or the other editor's since I made that post, so I have no idea whether there are continuing problems. If not, then that can be an end to it, but please do feel welcome to post here again if there still are problems and you think I can be of any help. JBW (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JBW, Right, thanks for the courtesty. I'm looking into the situation now too for the first time in 10 days and seems it has been brought to No original research noticeboard by other users having conflicts too. I'm going to reply there. Will also be asking about needing to address a WP:COI - or more specifically a WP:SPI. It would be great if you have a look at that Noticeboard if ever you have time, help might be warranted. Best, PierreLsn (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Boyer_%28chemist%29&type=revision&diff=1093613214&oldid=1091982120

I have not really looked at that article in years, and did not really now. But those meaningless things you removed, where VERY poorly formatted references to the books listed in further reading section. Jeepday (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

Ok, it appears an article you speedied and 2 NPP reviewers draftified is creating an issue, and may require an admin action. I will leave this in your capable hands. Atsme 💬 📧 13:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Thanks for letting me know. The page has now been created six times, three of which were still in existence when I checked after reading your message. I've blocked the account and deleted all but one copy of the page. I might have deleted that too, but decided to give it the benefit of the doubt; there's perhaps a 1 in 1,000 chance that someone will clean it up and make it suitable to become an article. JBW (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Thank you so much. I will Get to know this pace better, and c hange what needs to be changed:) Politidistrikt (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtua Fighter 5 the final?

There are IPs stating that Virtua Fighter 5 in the final title in the series, despite the fact that not only did an update for the game come out last year (Ultimate Showdown), but the developer(s) haven't said anything about that, the IPs are just basing that on their opinion alone, which of course is not what wiki is about. There are dozens of franchises that haven't been updated in years and no one is stating that's the final one in that series since we can't make that statement for the company. So, I request that the page be locked for a while.108.208.137.161

Thanks for working to prevent such unsourced speculation staying in the article. I've semi-protected the article for 3 weeks. Please feel welcome to contact me again if the problem continues after that. JBW (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina

Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

@JBW: Hi, may you undelete this article? The reason why it should be undeleted is because it is definitely a needed article, especially with all the work being done on the South American Miocene wiki, according to Augustios Paleo. 142.188.125.113 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at all to prevent an editor in good standing from creating an article on the subject, but I don't see any good reason on this occasion for restoring the article created by a long-term sockpuppeteer. Having looked at your other editing, I also ask you to be civil to other editors, no matter how much you disagree with them. JBW (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what @Augustios Paleo said on the WP:Paleo Discord server. But should it be recreated by anyone else that isn't the sockpuppeteer? 142.188.125.113 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is "what Augustios Paleo said on the WP:Paleo Discord server"? That the deleted article "should be undeleted ... because it is definitely a needed article"? That there's nothing at all to prevent an editor in good standing from creating an article on the subject?
Sorry, I was taking it for granted that "an editor in good standing" excluded anyone evading blocks or bans, but perhaps I should have explicitly said so. I also can't at the moment think of anything else that would make it unacceptable, so probably anyone not blocked or banned could create an article, or at least a draft article to be submitted for review. JBW (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Enforcement

Hello,

I have removed your pejoratives from my talk page because the statement appears to be calculated to obscure what can be interpreted as bias enforcement on a page.

In this case, this is a user trying to integrate cited, sourced content involving a scandal on a BLP page that has a documented conflict of interest with the Wikipedia editor crowd.

Please refrain from this sort of approach in the future, and if you disagree with content you can discuss it civilly. At that point you could provide clarification on what would be problematic with the sources you disagree with so that accurate and appropriate content can be included, instead of the "good ole boy" responses and blocks clearly documented on that talk page.

To be clear, under no circumstance imaginable will the approach demonstrated there be successful. It is not only unethical, but it undermines (highlights) credibility issue with Wikipedia in general.

If you can do better, please do. 71.65.65.144 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated edit warring over sourced political content

Hi JBW! Was wondering if you could provide help or guidance over the issues currently going on at New Zealand National Party, one user has been repeatedly reversing sourced content. We have tried to talk it out, but it generally always comes back to their own personal opinions without offering any substantial counter claims, or refusal to reply, before making reverts again. I haven’t really used Wiki frequently in years, but know most of the terms and rules, and based on my gathering, the user seems to be violating rules but since the New Zealand wiki pages tend to be a ghost town when it comes to moderation, not quite sure who to turn to for an unbiased opinion.

I’m happy to let this go if it can be discussed properly, but the user seems more determined on claiming I’m wrong without stating why. If you could even guide me into the right places to seek assistance on these issues, it would be a huge help. Thanks SjShane (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS and SjShane: Unfortunately just now I don't have time to look into this properly, but I'll try to look at it when I do have time. From a very quick glance, however, it seems that you are both acting in good faith, but it is also clear that both of you have been edit-warring, and you would be well advised to avoid continuing on that line, as doing so may lead to being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was under the impression sourced content was able to stay if there were no counters by the other user engaging in edit-warring, however it has been a long time since I used Wiki properly so rules have likely changed, will stop reversing myself until a decision is reached, even if it leaves the article factually incorrect, but feel an agreement may be unlikely between myself and this user given what has transpired so far. Thanks again. SjShane (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]