::[[Special:Contributions/218.248.69.33|218.248.69.33]] ([[User talk:218.248.69.33|talk]]) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
::[[Special:Contributions/218.248.69.33|218.248.69.33]] ([[User talk:218.248.69.33|talk]]) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
===Further Clarification===
Sir, am awaiting a response from you. And I request you, most humbly, to kindly review the case and also to allow me to point out that not a single edit of mine from any of these accounts was sockpuppetry as wikipedia defines it. The other account "User:White_adept" was only an alternate account used to edit '''a different set of articles''' - and which I had maintained in conformance with the wikipedia policy which I point out and quote above. The account Researcher31 is a wikiquote account - not a wikipedia account - and '''I had hardly made any edits from it on wikipedia - let alone anything of a sockpuppet nature.'''
As for the id "[[User:White_adept]]":
* I created it at a time when I was new to wikipedia.
* I never used the account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy
* The account was more or the less inactive for the past couple of years and I was not using it.
* Recently - that is back in Jan 2009 I used the alternate account to edit a set of articles related to [[Sathya Sai Baba]] - because the topic is sensitive in the community where I live and I had to ensure anonymity.
* I have not used the main account of mine to edit the articles related to [[Satha Sai Baba]] - except I think once, on a related article, when I forgot to log off form my main id.
* Edits from the alterante id were significant and quality contributions from quality sources such as The BBC, The Times, The DTV etc.
* The account was never used to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy neither was it ever used in a manner that would amount to meatpuppetry
* It was only an alternatea account which I used after reading through guidelines in [[WP:SOCK]] - which allow use of an alternate account in such scenarios.
Please allow me to point out again that the evidence you mentioned is only pointing to the fact that the accounts and IP are linked to my main account - there, naturally, was no evidence that I used the accounts in an abusive manner. Please look further into the case.
I also request that the above facts be taken into consideration and my account, from which I have made signficiant contributions to wikipedia, please be unblocked.
Thanking You.
Dilip Rajeev
[[Special:Contributions/218.248.69.23|218.248.69.23]] ([[User talk:218.248.69.23|talk]]) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That took 20-30 min with the admin page search function, weeding out the cases where he reported someone without making any abusive complaints and the cases which various flamers filed against him friviously and where he didn't overreact. That leaves 13 incidents where he went too far, some of them grievously too far, over 10 months.
I don't think anyone's bothered to put it all together in one place. Now that I did, I'm suprised he hasn't been indef'ed yet...
As seen here - "The segment was accompanied by pictures of farmers pulling strands of spaghetti from trees -- and prompted hundreds of viewers to call in, wanting to know how they could grow their own spaghetti trees." :) I guess you guys aren't able to understand jokes. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking into the matter. I am concerned that this person is in no way a new user, they sprung fully-formed into wikipedia with a full-blown knowledge of procedures and policies. I have one other possible suspect, but if that doesn't pan out, then I have no idea what to do. The rodeo articles are an absolute nightmare. Montanabw(talk)22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question about deletion of Alphonse Persico article
Peter, could you please provide some details on the deletion of this article? If there were problems with the sources, perhaps we could resolve them. I am just concerned that we are now missing an article on a very notable figure in this area. Thanks. Rogermx (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rogermx. Yes, I fully understand that, but the issues wasn't notability, rather that the information was generally negative and without reliable citation. We often get complaints about libel in articles; article subjects, often not aware of Wikipedia process, write to OTRS or the Foundation with sometimes very legitimate complaints. We cannot really resolve this fully, but one way we can prevent this is deleting unsourced negative BLPs, or at least removing any negative information which is lacking citation. I will send you the article by email if you have it enabled, so you can either source it or stub it. I don't mind which, but negative unsourced BLPs have been a big problem in the past, so the less around the better. I hope you understand. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The start of Round 2 has been in some respects an explosive one, with one user in particular almost in the triple figures after just a week. There are obviously contestants with no points or very few, but as it is so early in the round this can probably be excused. Keep it up everyone!
Note that due to unforeseen circumstances, Mitchazenia has been eliminated from the contest. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Wrestlinglover (36)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (8)
Pool C
Ceranthor (80)
Pool D
Candlewicke (28)
Pool E
Ottava Rima (30)
Pool F
Scorpion0422 (36)
Current Wildcards
Climie.ca (30)
Matthewedwards (22)
J Milburn (16)
Rlevse (15)
Paxse (14)
Useight (12)
Theleftorium (10)
All scores are accurate as of the end of Round 1.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Im sorry, I thought only album covers were not allowed on my page.But anyway, what can I put on my page,pictures I uploaded myself, for myself? Thanks and Peace Out-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You can put any free image on your userpage (perhaps search Wikimedia Commons, the depository of free images). You don't necessarily have to upload ones taken by yourself, but if you want to (and they are under a free license), then it is okay. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on this question...can I upload one of my own photos to WP if it is also on my Flickr page under a Creative Commons license? - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to block the IP, but looking at the IP userpages modified allowed me to find the CU.
So since you blocked previously, thought you might like to know, and to ask if you'd like to reinstate the block. - jc3708:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Which is too big to do on my own (/18, which affects ~16000 IP addresses), but I'll ask the CU to look into collateral damage. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to block this range again to stop this user from abusing the other IP pages and to stop personal attacks againest Fisherqueen? Momusufan (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was hoping you could help me or point me in the right direction with something. I've been having something of an edit war with another editor on the page of musician Alan Dubin. The main point of contention is that the other user is continuing to return pictures of album covers to this biography page, whereas it seems to me that a) the album covers listed on the page in the discography section makes the page cluttered and hard to read and b) album covers don't really belong on a biographical article, but rather in the pages for those albums, or maybe for the pages of the bands that made those albums, whereas this article is about the vocalist for those bands. I attempted to talk to this user on their talk page but they largely ignored me and continue to re-add these pictures to the page. Then I attempted to clean up the article by providing links in the biography to the pages for those albums, where the pictures are already posted, but the other user apparently doesn't like this as he removes those links when he re-adds the pictures. I'm not sure if I can tag these changes the other user is making as vandalism, so now I'm a little lost as to what the next step should be. The pictures were returned to the page earlier today and I'm pretty tired of removing them. Am I totally wrong here for trying to keep these pictures off the biographical page? I really appreciate any help you can give me. Rnb (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rnb. I think you're right; it makes the article awfully cluttered. Also, I doubt very much those images are in the public domain. I'll look into it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help with this. Unfortunately, it looks like the user in question didn't like your edit, either. Rnb (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With Hamish Ross, we generally treat him a bit like Grawp; block the accounts and don't bother tagging them. He has so many. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done my best to give a balanced interpretation, but of course each pointer is not without personal opinion. Thanks for informing me. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Your not taking the time to familiarize your self with the material in the article or the issue under discussion but nevertheless admonishing me on my talk page for making an edit that anyone marginally well-versed in the article's subject matter (much less an expert such as myself) would make is not called for and could even be taken as offensive. I request that you remove the comment from my talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may not be as familiar with the article's subject as you are, but I am incredibly well versed in WP:RS. That is what I am arguing: BLP subjects command our respect, and the sources need to be 100% reliable. The reliable sources take precedence over others. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources need to be 100% reliable, then you should remove 4 out of the 5 sources that claim 4 wives, as per my discussion on that talk page. Your saying "the reliable sources take precedence over others" seems to indicate that you didn't read our discussion there very carefully, as we have sources that are at least as reliable claiming 3 wives or 2 wives. I can see why you were misled, because Cirt created the impression that the conflict was between reliable sources and consensus. You could have cleared this up, however, if you had just read all the material on the talk page related to the issue. The fact that you didn't, but still saw fit to admonish me on my talk page is quite inappropriate, and I ask you again to remove it.
Two experts on the subject matter voiced the opinion that a manufactured debate among sources about how many wives there were doesn't belong in the article because it is irrelevant to Hak Ja Han's life. You claimed re the controversial content: "If it is included in this article, it is relevant." I must not understand what you mean, because it seems like a complete non-sequitor. You also haven't responded to my comment:
There are two experts calling it irrelevant and one editor who is obviously not very familiar with the subject matter who apparently doesn't agree, but he has not given a rationale for why he thinks it is relevant. I'm sure you're not saying that I can go to some article where I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, add an irrelevant sourced debate, and then say it's relevant because it's in the article, and that I shouldn't be overruled by two experts.
Your argument that Cirt is "obviously not very familiar with the subject matter" would be far more convincing if he wasn't one of the article's main contributors. But that is not the issue. If you really believe it is irrelevant, which I do not, perhaps from an outside point of view, then establish consensus for its removal. Simply citing "two experts" is not enough; one does not have to be an expert on the subject to consider something relevant or not. In the meantime, the material is apparently staying, so WP:RS must be given full precedence as with all cases of BLP. Shouting "it's not relevant" has no substance because you fail to give a convincing reason why it is not relevant. But, as I repeat: If you believe the material is not relevant, please establish consensus for its removal. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Among the contributors to the article Cirt alone advocates that the sentence remain. All others have asked for its removal or have not stated an opinion. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately to date the majority of the other contributors commenting quite actively at the talk page of the article Hak Ja Han are SPAs with a singular focus of promoting the Sun Myung Moon organization/movement Unification Church. Not exactly the best sample of an NPOV view, and all previously heavily involved with debate on the article prior to my major improvements to it with over forty sources. Cirt (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PeterSymonds. You have new messages at Samj's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
About my recent ban: A request for clarification
I am starting this discussion on the talk pages of the three administrators involve with my recent ban: I wante to talk to the three editors/administrators I see as having the most understanding of the dynamics surrounding my recent ban: PeterSymonds, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom. I am not sure the most efficient method of doing this, so I will post it to each of your talk pages, as well as my own talk page. I if this is the incorrect procedure or if this is too long.
I do this as an effort to better understand where the dividing line lies between promotion and inclusion of legitimate inclusion of material, to better understand the dynamics of my recent ban further, and so I don't make a similar mistake in the future. And because I am really confused.
What I am lost with is how can it be considered promotion when including a individual in a wiki page when they actually are notable individuals in relation to those entries? I'll talk about specifics in this case:
Michelle Belanger in relation to the topics of DragonCon_Dark_Fantasy_Track, Urn_(band), Vampire_lifestyle, Vampire_Secrets. Belanger has a notable part in these topics. She has been and continues to be a recurring presenter for the Dragon Con. she did appear in an Urn video with Don Henrie. She was the first third party published author to discuss psychic vampirism and the in a non hostile manner. And she was in fact one of the authors who appeared on the show Vampire Secrets. Additionally, with the exception of the Vampire_lifestyle page, she was listed in conjunction with with other individuals, and Belanger's inclusion in those entires was was done by third parties.
What I might be guilty of in those cases, and I will admit to this, is blindly undoing a series of deletes performed by another editor who might not have been aware of her involvement, when I probably should have more selective in my actions and what I chose to reinstate.
As for the Vampire_lifestyle page, I did seek to include the writers Raven Kaldera, and Lady CG, but since their works were self published, those references were removed. My choice to remove the references Asetian Bible from the Vampire_lifestyle entry came about only after a discussion I participated in on the Ankh page clarified to me that it was considered self published, and therefore did not meet the criteria of a reliable source.
Could I be considered a Belanger fangirl? Likely. But I would would doubt any entry that references notable individuals are free from input from those persons' fans.
But I am also a participant in the vampire community. A community I feel very strongly about, and one that I do want to see properly discussed in the wiki entries, especially with the sort of attention we have been getting because of Twilight, True Blood and all the other vampire related topics out there. And this includes being aware of the activities of one of our more prominent members – one who has even appeared on Fox news on December 8th as "an expert on the vampire community".
And if I were really out to be promotional of Belanger, I would have sough to include her on the Don_Henrie entry (a person she has had repeated contact with) and the Paranormal_State entry (a show where she is a recurring psychic consultant for). Instead, I've chosen to not involve myself in those entires, respecting the fact that if it is considered notable to other editor, she will be added. I've also not attempted to create a page for Belanger. Again, I leave that to come about on it's own from the collaboration of other editors.
What I feel I see happening with here is struggle I suspect occurs with an individual in the process of actually gaining notoriety. It might appear that the inclusion of Belanger on these topics is promotional attempts, but, like it or not, the reality is that she is indeed an author, presenter, singer, and television personality at this point. And the editors adding her to these entries are aware of this.
Now, if it will help, I will dig through and cite every single possible appearance of Michelle Belanger I can find in media that is not from a vanity or self-published source.
Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide on this matter. And I hope that simply asking for and attempting to give clarification doesn't get me banned again.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Premature closure of Date formatting and linking poll
On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Fielding, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with six wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Shoemaker's Holiday (156)
Pool B
ThinkBlue (79)
Pool C
Theleftorium (88)
Pool D
J Milburn (46)
Pool E
Durova (136)
Pool F
Sasata (131)
Current Wildcards
Ceranthor (82)
Ottava Rima (82)
Wrestlinglover (77)
Rlevse (63)
the_ed17 (49)
97198 (43)
Useight (41)
Scorpion0422 (41)
Candlewicke (38)
Matthewedwards (33)
All scores are accurate as of 15:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Again I would ask you to consider the fact that I thought I was on a sock puppet ban initially. At the time I was researching the what constituted puppetry and in so doing read the section on meat puppets. If I was researching puppet ban issues, would I really have ask some one to join in and do the exact same thing i did? If NyteMuse had thought to contact me before she made the post I would have told her to stay out of it. Yes, we run in similar circles, but that does not mean I asked her to participate here.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by their first edit, which was reverting back to SiIIyLiIIy's edit. Possibly meat puppetry but the edit struck of WP:DUCK. However, looking back over the page, I see it is an online community. Given the kind explanation posted here, I am unblocking the account, but SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy, I would urge you to advise anyone else from that community of our policies and guidelines to prevent any further unfortunate misunderstandings. Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you as well. I will be sure to pass on the importance of being aware of the wiki community policies and guidlines. Thnak you for your patience with us as well.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Susan Boyle
I'm kind of perturbed that after I reopened giving clear reasons why I was doing so, you came along and closed it again, ignoring what I had said.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore what you said, but it came to a point of WP:SNOW. There was really no further need to keep it open. If you want to reopen it, go ahead, but it seemed highly unnecessary to keep it open any longer. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns were raised during the discussion about existing early closing, especially SNOW closes. AfD guidelines should now be rewritten to incorporate the decisions in this discussion, and to direct people to allow AfD discussions to go the full seven days unless there is a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to close early.
Hence my previous changes. Since you don't object, I will reopen again. I know it's POINTy, but it's a recent change that needs to have attention called to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is your call, but I find it alarming that such a rule has been put in place. Quite disappointing really. Anyway, thanks for the links; I'll bear that in mind. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From having a quick look at the link discussion, it appears that there is no hard and fast rule that SNOW cant be used, just that it is discouraged. Jenuk1985 | Talk16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's no point in making a change if it's going to be completely ignored, right? Besides, the BLP1E argument isn't invalid. This should go the full length to properly establish consensus.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start its an inappropriate change that goes completely against common sense. Taking the common sense argument further, its common sense that this AfD was closed, it is a classic case of SNOW. Right now you are creating admin for admins sake. Jenuk1985 | Talk16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll obviously go along with the 5-7 day change, but I think it was kind of a stretch to pull that "NO SNOW" thing into that close (the AfD discussion on 5-7 days) at the very end of the discussion. — Ched : ? 17:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO WP:SNOW is pointless in AfDs. It's been misused too much, like in the Susan Boyle thing. An AfD is not an RfA, where % of support votes counts. 20 people might cite a wrong policy, and 5 people may cite the correct one, and it would be closed due to WP:SNOW. Not fair. Antivenin00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<* cough, cough *>, ahhh .. yea. I think I'm probably the guilty party on this one folks. I ran across the AfD here while checking through the Help Desk. I then mentioned the issue to Peter in IRC. At the time it looked like a clear SNOW issue, and to be even more frank, I also thought it was a forumshopping issue as well (probably an unfair assumption on my part). So ... all cards on the table, I'm most likely the one that everyone should be looking at if there's a finger of blame to be pointed here. I'll just go ahead an pick up my trout on the way out ;) — Ched : ? 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I don't agree with that. The AfD crowd are generally a sensible and clueful bunch, who have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. They read the article and come up with a decision. Granted it could happen, but no, it would be highly unlikely for 20 people to cite the wrong policy. Now, that excludes cases of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and any off-site canvassing, but from every AfD I have seen, this is obviously not given undue weight in the closing decision. So I believe your concerns about an unfair vote are unfounded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it happened with the Susan Boyle thing. That's all I'm saying. A non-admin closed it citing WP:SNOW without addressing the concerns raised by those who wanted it deleted. Antivenin15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
for your advice. You see, I can edit again. But when I tried to edit the article, the removed information was already restored with the reference by other user. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protect Total Drama Action. More assumptions and destruction of the format and content of the article. I have HAD it with the vandals of this article and I was wondering if you could please protect it (autoconfirmed) for about 1 year. Thanks! TDI19 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A year is probably too much at this stage; protection should rise in stages. 3 months should be okay for now, at least. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no good version. She never created her userpage so I decided to protect it to make sure further vandalism doesn't occur. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CUTKD. Yeah, I saw the attack. I think perhaps it's best to leave the block at 31 hours for now, as a first block. If they does it again, I'll have no qualms about extending it. The IP doesn't look very busy so an extension shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for the note, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was grant but those diffs indicate the editor needs a little more caution before getting rollback. I'll mark as not done. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the userrights conflict. I guess we could just fully protect the page every time we begin a review...! ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given those only a few of us active over there it's probably a good one to use. Also, it means others can chip in with comments so when whoever started the review returns they might have additional info. Pedro : Chat 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australia
You are quite correct. I was a bit stressed and just clicked rollback, forgetting that rollback functionality isn't the same in IE as it is in Firefox with Twinkle. Twinkle gives you the opportunity to add an edit summary but IE just rolls back. It was one of those "Doh!" moments after I'd done it but it was too late by then. Sorry about that. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Fingers crossed Sansonic switches to constructive editing when the block expires in a fortnight, they have signs of be able to contribute constructively. Fences and windows (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. You can open a requested move here, at Wikipedia:Requested moves. This is not an uncontroversial move. If you want it moved, open a discussion there. Further, there was no discussion on that page, just a single post. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nürburgring lap times
I noticed that you protected the Nürburgring lap times article a couple of months ago.
While a lot of the content issues have been resolved, recently there have been a lot of anon IPs edits, which are vandalism (ie changing random numbers) than content dispute.
While I prefer talk pages in this situation the talk page isn't going to change a thing, neither is an IP block as the IPs are constantly changing.
Could you semi-protect the page so that non/newly registered editors cannot vandalise it again please?
Thanks - it was hard work constantly checking that page for vandalism, also I was worried that someone would see it as a content dispute, not vandalism and bust me for edit warring or something. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Antonia1976, I completely agree, there is nothing else needed right now, since the second account is now blocked. (It wasn't when I filed the report.) I looked back through the edit histories of these articles and there seems to be a slow, months-long pattern of similar accounts, each used for a few similar unconstructive edits and then abandoned. This is my first time to file a sockpuppet report, so, may I ask your advice for next time? If and when the pattern repeats, should I: (1) add the new account(s) to this existing page, (2) start a new sockpuppet report page, or (3) just report the unconstructive edits to AIV and not bother with the puppet report? Thanks,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can ask my advice; I'll try and help the best I can. :) If you see any suspicious and long-term accounts, feel free to re-open the report with a request for checkuser instead of an ordinary SPI. Problematic repeat vandals can often have their IP looked at to see if a rangeblock/proxyblock is viable. It also could uncover any potential sleepers. However that's for any sustained problems with this editor, and a request for checkuser is premature at present. Worth bearing in mind though. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is enough for a DUCK, so I thought I would ask you. The similarities just seem to good to be true. :)
Sheepeh (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Peter. I came across a blog post complaining about negative claims in the article Joe Banner which you had protected in this state with the text "As team president, Banner has proven to rather want to make money then win championships, as he is behind the lose of many free agents such as Brian Dawkins, Troy Vincent, Bobby Taylor, Duce Staley, Tra Thomas, Brian Mitchell, Derrick Burgess, and Jeff Garcia." I wonder if it might be wise to be a little more ruthless with regards to unsourced negative claims in WP:BLPs in future, or if you don't want to get involved with the content (perfectly understandable), post a short note at WP:BLPN so a volunteer can take a look. Regards, Skomorokh05:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter. Just checking in with you regarding the matter we discussed via email (see 3/18 and your response on 3/22). Haven't heard from you since you said you'd look into it. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have you on ignore. When you have something serious to say to me (I am and was very busy), I will respond. Simple as that. Questions about why I won't talk about my religion are totally not the reason I'm there. Thanks for your apology in any case. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you please look over this article Hamas. I argue my edit is the more balanced of the two (although I am certainly open to a compromise)- and I think an edit war may begin anew. ThanksStarstylers (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rollbacker permission - Thanks
Wow! Thanks. That was fast. Sometimes I forget how much faster things happen around here compared to on the other projects. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh! I'm recognizable now. Scary. ;-) I was just looking through my watchlist and caught an unnoticed joke/vandalism edit, and I got to use my rollback rights here. Now rolling back is just as fast as everything else on the English Wikipedia.
Since you're an admin and also experienced on Commons would you mind taking a look at the comments I left on Talk:Stay in MA, User talk:Yifanz, and File:Stayinma.jpg (which is actually commons:File:Stayinma.jpg). First, just some general feedback about how I handled that would be appreciated (may well have invested more time than it was worth in writing all that, but I always like to try to ease newbies into this whole Wikipedia thing as easily as possible if they appear to be acting in good faith). Secondly, it seems like there must be a faster/easier way to flag images hosted on commons and then notify the user on the local project. It took me a lot of searching to find the corresponding templates to use on the different projects to do something that should have been pretty simple. If the templates even had the same name, that would help a lot. Did I just take the long way around the problem? Or is it something that needs some discussion started (or perhaps some bold action) to simplify the process? Thanks! (P.S. please leave me a {{Talkback}} or something after you reply.) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. How did you get your special talk page header to appear when editing your talk page? It's great! I don't see any template used to do it, no magic words, etc. As a template developer, I find tweaks like that fascinating (and as an administrator of a non-WMF MediaWiki wiki, it's also a little scary since I don't know how someone could accomplish that and if it could do something more nefarious in the wrong hands). —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still new to many aspects here and do not want to make too many mistakes or inconvenience people. Much appreciate putting on the protection for the symbol article--LittleHow (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, if you wouldn't mind; the computer is incredibly slow!! :) As for the discussion, well, I see some consensus to keep it there, but if that changes, another admin can remove it. I'll keep an eye on a potential edit war. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you're a SPI clerk, and I have a CU question for you. I've got a suspicion that some (now blocked) users are sockpuppets of another editor. If the editor used a proxy, though, would a CU help in determining sockpuppetry? Shubinator (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it can do, but only if the users are all created on the same proxy. Proxies can often be a good way to show that a set of users are sockpuppets, but it's often difficult to link back to a master account, because proxy use hides this link. For example, User:W has been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Two weeks later, users X, Y and Z come back and start tag-team edit warring. A checkuser is done which shows that X, Y and Z are sockpuppets of each other, but there is no technical link to W because of proxy usage. So it falls down to behavioural evidence which is often enough. In short, checkusers can detect sockpuppets on a proxy, but as proxies are often used to shield the user's real IP, it can sometimes be difficult to get a technical match, in which case behaviour becomes an important factor. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had my headshot photo on there, just under my full name header, but it's not on there right now. The photo is uploaded onto Wikipedia, and it's file name is CWC22c.jpg. Please replace it where it was. Thank you.
The user page in question has been deleted, therefore the request cannot be completed and thereore is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Thought I'd save you the time in looking for it.
--User:L3wikis (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (GMT)
My mail to the arbcom( arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org ) dated February 13th, 2009
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Dilip Rajeev <dilip.rajeev@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sirs,
This is to let you know that I , User:Dilip_rajeev am using account User:White_adept to edit a a couple of topics - especially the article "Sathya Sai Baba". Here I was forced to use a secondary account because any negative discussion of Sai Baba activities can invite strong reaction including physical violence from the Sai Baba cult members. And details in my primary account can help physically identify me. I had decided to contribute to this article out of sheer concern for the extent of spinning and cover up I noticed on the page.
To clarify the nature of the problem, I quote from the article" Sathya Sai Baba" itself:
Those who have attempted to criticize and make public the alleged deceptions of Sathyanarayana Raju have met with strong and often violent opposition from devotee circles, especially in India. [5] Basava Premanand, one of India's leading fake-guru busters, stated that his research proves that Sai Baba is not just a fraud but a dangerous sexual abuser. His statements enraged some of Sai Baba's supporters. To date, Basava Premanand has survived four murder attempts and bears the scars from several savage beatings. In 2004, his house was burgled again. He states the purpose of the assailants was to attempt to destroy the evidence he collected against Sai Baba for 30 years. [36] ( Source: BBC Documentary . Secret Swami )
Conny Larsson, once a close devotee of Sai Baba for 21 years and leader of the Swedish Sai Baba organization says that he continued to believe in the baba despite having experienced sexual abuse at his hands. He later broke away from the movement, outraged at witnessing the Baba's behaviour of a sexual nature with a young boy and then the boy's own mother who was waiting outside being deceived by a sleight-of-hand "materialization". Larsson states that when he dared to speak out: "I was threatened that I would be shot when I should go to Poland. And now one has tried a new tactic, from the Sai movement, and that is to send out messages about me saying I am a convicted pedophile. They have, so to speak, turned around the entire problematic and say that what Sai Baba is guilty of - pedophilia – is what I am guilty of. I and the other guys who have dared to speak out – it is us who are pedophiles. And they have send this announcement out across the globe. And Sai followers believe it." [37]
Commenting on the issue, Sanal Edamaruku states: "The media [in India] is scared, basically. For example when the big scandal about SB's sexual abuse on people arose. And look at the Indian media. There was only one newspaper from New Delhi which produced the story. People are so afraid, so scared because he is politically powerful and his influence is so real and he can damage if he is criticised. Anybody (who) criticises is eliminated, or attacked or cornered or isolated. Having a press conference on SB's 70th birthday, the very next day I found that my car parts were removed in the morning so that I could simply have an accident. It could look like a coincidence. Such things happened several times, but we are not afraid. We are not going to be cowed down by that thing. We're waiting for that time that people come out openly and expose this cheat."[38]
I request that it be noted that I have not engaged in any activity would be considered a violation of ( my understanding of ) WP:Sock and neither will I in the future - the guidelines in which state:
"A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."
I also request that details that would help identify me physically please not be revealed.
Sincerely,
Dilip Rajeev
Sir,
This is to point out that the allegation I was banned for, "sockpuppetry", is absolutely with without basis. The account User:White_adept is an alternate account which I maintained as per : Legitimate uses of alternative accounts,Wp:Sock - as per the Wikipedia policy: "A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area." To further make my position clear, I had also informed the arbcom of this back in February, 2009 itself.
The account User:Researcher31 is an account created for Wikiquote - which requires an independent account. Further , I have not used either account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy and thus my alternate account cannot be called a WP:SOCK.' I had been quite open about it being my alternate account when queried by legitimate users:[6]
The accounts, I have used to edit a mutually exclusive set of articles. And at one or two instances I mistakenly signed talk page comments with the other account name - which I immediately fixed.
The IPS are shared IPs and some of the edits from these were indeed made by me - and only because I forgot to sign in at times. All of these edits are legitimate contributions to wikipedia - not by any means sock IP edits to circumvent wiki policies. I use a dialup account so the IPs keep cycling.
I will take another look at the sockpuppetry investigation but the evidence was clear. I noted my investigation findings on the investigation quite clearly, and opened myself to review by another clerk. The other clerk endorsed my findings and closed the case. However, there are some points of interest to note. Just because some of the IP edits were not you, the IPs were still used by you, which is why I blocked them. You claim you did not violate policy with those accounts, but the evidence on the case suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, I am open to scrutiny by other clerks and the arbitration committee if they wish to comment. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, all that the investigation says is that the accounts are mine - absolutely not that I used multiple accounts to circumvent or violate wikipedis policies. Please let me know how I used the accounts in a manner that would amount to violation of wikipedia policies. I absolutely have not used the accounts in such a manner. Kindly look further into it.
Sir, the investigation was hastened to a close upon finding that the accounts are mine - which I myself have admitted openly. But there was nothing that came out in the investigations that pointed to my using either account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy - and if I have not, accusing and banning me for "sockpuppetry" is absolutely not right and I absolutely don't deserve the label or the block.
Sir, am awaiting a response from you. And I request you, most humbly, to kindly review the case and also to allow me to point out that not a single edit of mine from any of these accounts was sockpuppetry as wikipedia defines it. The other account "User:White_adept" was only an alternate account used to edit a different set of articles - and which I had maintained in conformance with the wikipedia policy which I point out and quote above. The account Researcher31 is a wikiquote account - not a wikipedia account - and I had hardly made any edits from it on wikipedia - let alone anything of a sockpuppet nature.
I created it at a time when I was new to wikipedia.
I never used the account to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy
The account was more or the less inactive for the past couple of years and I was not using it.
Recently - that is back in Jan 2009 I used the alternate account to edit a set of articles related to Sathya Sai Baba - because the topic is sensitive in the community where I live and I had to ensure anonymity.
I have not used the main account of mine to edit the articles related to Satha Sai Baba - except I think once, on a related article, when I forgot to log off form my main id.
Edits from the alterante id were significant and quality contributions from quality sources such as The BBC, The Times, The DTV etc.
The account was never used to violate or circumvent any wikipedia policy neither was it ever used in a manner that would amount to meatpuppetry
It was only an alternatea account which I used after reading through guidelines in WP:SOCK - which allow use of an alternate account in such scenarios.
Please allow me to point out again that the evidence you mentioned is only pointing to the fact that the accounts and IP are linked to my main account - there, naturally, was no evidence that I used the accounts in an abusive manner. Please look further into the case.
I also request that the above facts be taken into consideration and my account, from which I have made signficiant contributions to wikipedia, please be unblocked.
Done by Mfield (talk · contribs). Best, PeterSymonds : Chat 07:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A year is probably too much at this stage; protection should rise in stages. 3 months should be okay for now, at least. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing request. Pedro : Chat 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
