Jump to content

User talk:Mayalld

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mwalla (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 18 March 2009 (→‎Re: Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Colonel_Warden/Archive

My ears are burning. Your prompt closure of this matter seems reasonable but I am puzzled by your comment that "it is clear that the IP and the user are one and the same". There have been numerous editors who have expressed an interest in this contested merger and it seems that the IP in question is in the USA, while I am in Britain. I have been consciously restraining myself as this topic is covered by general arbcom sanctions which require editors to conform to "any expected standards of behavior". In any case, it is not my style to conceal my edits, though I might, on occasion, not notice that I am not logged in. So, please could you amend your comment to fully clear my name.

Perhaps you might also consider whether User:ScienceApologist and User:Verbal are conducting themselves properly. The former has already been banned from topics of this sort while the latter seems to be openly edit warring against the action of the uninvolved admin user:Ruslik0 who recently restored the article in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have refactored my closing comments, which weren't sufficiently clear. My intent was to make the point that even if the IP was you, it wouldn't be socking. I am aware of the fact that SA is restricted on such articles, and would offer the opinion that bad faith sockpuppet reports about people who SA might edit war with if he was allowed to edit there seem to be yet another example of the "Civil Disobedience" that is heading towards a 3 month ban. Mayalld (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for editing the archived case. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case

You have closed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meoconne case with the motivation that the problems stopped, because there was no edits made by these accounts. If they are sockpuppets than they are sockpuppets, disregarder the fact whether they make any edits or not.

BTW, the problems did stopped, but they stopped because I stopped editind the article, to avoid problems while it was investigated, and the current version is theirs. It can by no means stay like that, important parts needs to be added again. I will do it soon and I am sure that it will be more trouble again. What if I add them and everything starts all over again?

Did you checked the IP adresseses?

Warrington (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP addresses were not checked, and would not be checked out in a case like this. The evidence of sockpuppetry was tenuous at best, and as such there was nothing more to be done. Mayalld (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I understand your point of wiew. Just let me add a clarification. The Komondor article is edited wery seldomly indeed, and I still think that it is strange that suddenly four accounts which do not edit anything else but Komondor related topics, all of the sudden start working in the same direction, supporting each other in all ways. Because of one picture taken at W, Dog Show.

And all of them are referring to a Komondor dog called Quincy, which is said to be the one in that picture.

Warrington (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangersarecool

Pardon me if I disagree but rangersarecool is a very smart 4th grader and would not make a account called rangerarecool1234. do you know who would? someone who wanted rangersarecool would. do you know who that is? davidthedograt. How do I know? im in his class. im also in david the dogman's class im also in foxcows, jeffhardys, and rangersarecool. if it wasnt for davidthedograt rangersarecool wouldn't be blocked. darknesswolf is another account used for cantributions, not vandalism! he was trying to get away from niv, who new what rangersarecools password was. (he found out while he was typing it in class) then he made darknesswolf. then a classmate comes and says ooooh lets make a account called rangerarecool1234 and create vandalism so they'l think im rangersarecool! oh and for good measure, he says he is rangersarecool on your talk page. hes not that dumb. hes in a gifted class, we all are. (exept sometimes I wonder about davidthedograt...) enyway hes a straght A student in gifted 4th grade and loves wikipedia. he always talks about it! sorry to disturb you, im just angry at the people who blocked him, and didnt unblock him. Jinxyouowemeasoda (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed messages like this convince me that we got the correct answer in this case. Mayalld (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astatine-210

Seeing your recent entries in that user's talk page .... maybe you can help me. Background: the top of the computing category tree includes:

Category:Computing
Category:Software
Category:Application software

These are all tagged "catdifffuse" - subcategories should be used. Over the last several years I've been cleaning up the computing categorizations (thousands of edits), including those three categories - which now have just the few appropriate articles. In recent months I've been using a Google search to find new articles with the word "software" and then, if necessary, adding the appropriate software categories - a "get there first approach". The most common case is an article classified "Computing" that belongs in a subcategory of "Application software".

Feb 28-Mar 1 (several edits) Astatine created Freecorder.
Mar 4 I found the article, category "computing" and changed the cat to "Digital audio recording". Usually this is sufficient; most Wikipedians seem able to recognize when a global category is replaced by a specific category. But ...
Mar 7 Astatine restored "computing" and added the category "Computer Programs". There is no such category "Computer Programs".
Mar 7 My first note to Austine User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#Freecorder categories. I had also noticed that his user page was categorized "Wikipedia pages with to-do lists" which I believe to be an error, so I posted a 2nd note User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#To do
Mar 11 Getting no replies, I asked:User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#No reply to "Freecorder", "To Do" comments ???". His reply, "..can't expect... reply to everything"! (note that his user page has the category "WIkipedia administrator hopefuls" !!!)
Mar 13 I replied to his comment: for "To Do" gave the link to Wikipedian user page categorization. Asked him to look at category computing.
Mar 13 (1st three edits). He changes the non-existent category "Computer Programs" to "Software".
Mar 13 My note: asked him to remove categories "Computing" and "Software". Gave the the complete tree structure to show that those categories were not needed. User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#Freecorder
Mar 13 (last three edit edits to Freecorder): he removes "Software" but adds categories essentially marching up the tree. He used the tree structure I just gave him - no good deed goes unpunished!
Audio software - wrong, Digital audio recording is already a subcat
Multimedia software - wrong, Audio software is a subcat
Multimedia - wrong. Multimedia software is a subcat and this is NOT a category for software articles.
Application software - wrong, Multimedia software is a sub cat.
Mar 13 Astatine's rely to me, in User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#Freecorder, stating that for his article "It needs to be categorized into all categories, even subcats".
Oh, yes, his user page is still categorized.

So: for me, I regard the exchange above as unreal, then there is your experience and the very recent User talk:Astatine-210/Archives/March#Your edit notice. Is there a pattern here? What can be done? Thanks, 69.106.242.20 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the closed SPI of Erikeltic.

It would appear that the user is back to their old tricks since your closure of their SPI. An initial block of the anon accounts was a good idea, but the user, after their short block appears to have created at least one different account to act as support within at least one AfD that I am aware of. The discovery and discussion of such is ongoing at this AN/I. As you were the closing admin, I am wondering if a new checkuser needs to be filed, even though it appears conclusive that the two are the same individual. I've sent a similar message to the editor who originally filed the SPI report. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please file a new SPI case. Where a user is a chronic recidivist Sockpuppeteer, it helps to build a comprehensive picture of their activities for future reference. Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add a '2' to the new investigation, right? Example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Erikeltic2. Is that correct? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just file it under the same name. SPI cases are all filed under a single name, and we build an archive of reports as sections of that single page. Mayalld (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another user beat me to it. The SPI can be found here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlexLevyOne

In all the excitement, no one thought to block the actual Alexandre Gilbert account and he is still editing. I feel silly creating a new sockpuppet report for this (this last one quickly archived) - suggestions? JohnInDC (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case was archived a bit prematurely, which isn't like Synergy, he's usually spot on, but we all have off days. Lucasbfr who was the CU on the case is doing some wider range blocks on him tonight, so I've dropped him a note to remind him of the missing block. (Keeps fingers crossed that I pass RfA in a couple of months, then I can do this stuff myself) Mayalld (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GL! JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Church

Hi Mayalld. As informed on the article's talk page, I got the material from another Wikipedia article, Handsworth, South Yorkshire, did you detect a problem? Regards, Wikityke (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whilst you may have obtained the text from another Wikipedia article, it is plain that the content comes originally from the Church website, and is a copyright violation. The church article cannot remain, and it must be removed from the Handsworth article Mayalld (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the info'. As the Wikipedia article seems to date from 2004, how should I check if it was the source for the church article, rather than the other way around? (thanks in advance for any tips). Regards, Wikityke (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with speedy deletion if the content represents a copyright violation, of course. Wikityke (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla

Dear Mayalld. There have been no new findings in the Mwalla case since March 9. At the same time, Mwalla continues using his socks in an unproductive manner. Would it be possible to move the case to the "Cases in need of attention" - open SPI cases which have not been updated in the last three days? Thank you. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "cases not updated in the last 3 days" is a semi-automatic categorisation, and works based on when the case was last edited. As the case was edited less than 3 days ago, it won't appear there. The category is designed to catch cases that haev gone so deathly quiet that we need to consider closing them. This case is gradually working its way to the bottom of the case list, so reat assured that it is seen as a case that has been around for a while. Mayalld (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mayalld, I will let you draw your own conclusions on the issues raised by The Sceptical Chymist. He has a POV and does not assume good faith. He has consistently harrassed me. Wikipedia is a big place, but he chooses to follow me around. When he has a disagreement with an established editor such as Orangemarlin[1], he does not try to compromise and instead tries to get them blocked [[2]] he also recruits other editors to opine on his behalf. I suspect these other editors are in fact his sock puppets. Mwalla (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayalld&oldid=278105160"