User talk:Redvers

Redvers is male • gay • married • a socialist • a vegetarian • Welsh • an atheist • and sing your life 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 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 Don't post your images to Commons. Why not? DON'T post "talkback" templates. I'm already watchlisting your talk page Watchlist this page to see replies

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Denying access to talk page

I'm asking here, because I don't think this advances the discussion, just may fill in a gap in my education. In this ANI thread, you blocked access to the editor's talk page using the argument that the editor "can make an unblock request on their original account". I presume you believe this is a sock of a blocked name, and I assume the user has created a new name because their other account is blocked. If so, how can they post an unblock request on their other account?

Could it be that their other account is blocked, except for edits to talk page? I know that is technically possible, but how do you know it is the case here? Do you know the prior user name?

Wouldn't an unblock request be prima facie proof it is a sock? And therefore, the request for unblock would be evidence they shouldn't be unblocked? Sounds Catch-22 to me.

I guess I'm not seeing the point of blocking access to the user's talk page in this instance. For the record, I'd lay heavy odds that this user is not someone we want having access to WP editing. But I'm not sure why closing the door to any response is the best course.--SPhilbrickT 14:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phil! If so, how can they post an unblock request on their other account? By logging in as their original account and posting an {{unblock}} template on their original talk page.

Could it be that their other account is blocked, except for edits to talk page? Yes, if someone's socking, as this editor clearly was, then I'd expect their original account to be blocked. If it isn't, they've no reason to edit as a disruptive sock in the first place so there's no reason for the sock account to continue unblocked.

I know that is technically possible, but how do you know it is the case here? Experience of dealing with several thousand socks, disruptive editors and disruptive socks over the last 6 years, I guess.

Do you know the prior user name? I don't know their original account, but that's not the important factor. It's more important to stop disruption from an obvious sock than anything else.

Wouldn't an unblock request be prima facie proof it is a sock? Unblock request from where? On their old account? No, as they'd have no requirement to say "please unblock me now you've blocked my abusive sock". The point of a block is to be corrective, not punitive. They should be given ample evidence that disruptive socking is not tolerated.

And therefore, the request for unblock would be evidence they shouldn't be unblocked? I think you're assuming that we'd know immediately that the original editor == the abusive sock when the original editor posts an unblock request. That'd be great, but we don't know that unless they admit it.

I guess I'm not seeing the point of blocking access to the user's talk page in this instance. This would be the main reason. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. --SPhilbrickT 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet's edit (apparently)

Hello, Redvers. I was referred here, on my talk page, by Keithbob . The story is this: I see a contribution (see the last comment in this section) to a RfC followed by this:

"—Preceding unsigned comment added by BifurcatingBellCurves (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (Note: BifurcatingBellCurves is a sock of the same banned user as GypsyBanksters)".

When I click on BifurcatingBellCurves, I see a tag reading:

"This account is a suspected sock puppet of Karmaisking and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful."

I'm not savvy enough to refer as advised, and I'm wondering whether I should revert the contribution in question. Also, from what I've read about violating bans, I wonder whether I should report the violation, and, if so, where. I would prefer to figure all this out from reading, but by the time I found the answer, I'd have forgotten the whole thing! Can you advise me? Thanks for your time and attention. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to report it - we blocked them earlier, reverted and deleted where required and are now back on track. If nobody has replied to the sock's entry on the page, then, yes, by all means remove the entry (with an edit summary like "rv addition by sock of a banned user"). Banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all. They are persona non grata, so we should always remove their additions... except if they're truly valuable to us, as there's no point cutting our noses off... ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 15:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. No one had replied to the sock's entry, and I have done as you suggested. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User: East of Borschov

Make sure this person gets a Barnstar for voestalpine. I'm sure this person's contriburions, though added after some encouragement by me, were more valuable.

I forgot there would also be a reference to stub-class on the talk page. But then you said you didn't call it a stub anyway.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

• From the team: Changes to the Signpost

• News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more

• In the news: Cancer coverage, cognitive surplus, Wikipedia monarchy, and more

• Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadioglu Baharat

Hello Redvers, I was communicating with Favonian on explaining my site. There is no advertising involved in what I wrote. I was explaining why the company is important for the public. There is a huge community behind it and what they do is very important for the future of healthy spices. I would like to discuss this with you. Geronimo ahmo (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you work for Kadioglu Baharat or have any connection with them? What is your relationship with Ahmetk (talk · contribs)? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)