User talk:MrsBucket

Welcome!

Hello, MrsBucket, or should that be bouquet? Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Bob talk 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language links

At the foot of the article on e.g. Leo, Sayer his name is repeated in several foreign languages. Why? MrsBucket (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are links to articles in Wikipedias in other languages. Try one! NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Leo Sayer

RE: Sex ratios affected by war

Thank you. So the original premise is wrong? Nature does not adjust the sex ratio as a consequence of war? MrsBucket (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would go against evolution and natural selection. There is no know mechanism for how this could happen. The reports that claim it did happen suffer from Simpson's paradox, in that when you split the data correcet, they actually show the ratio was 50/50 all along.--Dacium (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrsBucket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Lack of instructions as to what has gone on here and what I should do. I am not an abusive editor; request diffs and explanation of the indefinite block/bann (which?), quoting the relevant policies. MrsBucket (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't a flat-out refusal to unblock you - I'm just removing the template while things get sorted out. As Alison is a checkuser, and the reason given was sockpuppetry, I would assume she has more information the rest of us don't have, however things are certainly looking rather confusing at present. Given the number of people who have posted here, I'm sure you'll get a more definite response to this soon (either an unblock or an official decline), but if not, feel free to put up another unblock template. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Admins, as the blocking admin here, I'm looking into this issue. I've emailed the owner of this account - Alison ^❤ 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this debate rather cold, just because I originally posted the "welcome to Wikipedia" thing, I'm slightly confused as to why there is such a big move to block this user - as far as I can see, the user hasn't edited since January, and I can't see any abusive edits in the contributions history. Bob talk 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, am I to believe this user has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock of an editor who is not blocked? Doesn't seem right to me.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to block their main account, too? Given what they've done here, that's well within the scope of possibility - Alison ^❤ 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threats won't help and it's not for me to tell you what to do. Point is you haven't said what it is they have done, and you seem confused as to exactly who they are. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe why you think Kittybrewster now owns the main account, given you previously thought it was RMC. Have you performed a check-user? You say you haven't so how can anything be said for definite? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block the main account, Alison. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up here, I'm missing something. This user has been tagged as a sock of Kittybrewster (talk · contribs), who, as far as I know, is an editor in good standing. MrsBucket only edited from January 13 until January 29. Kittybrewster had no edits from January 1 until February 20. So it is possible (speculating here) that Kittybrewster merely wanted to vanish and reappear under another name, then, a month later, changed his/her mind. I'm not seeing any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. Alison, this doesn't have anything to do with the disagreement over Vintagekit's userpage does it? I see where both you and Kittybrewster had opinions there. --B (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some wrong has occurred, I hope it was nothing more than a mistake, but that may be wishful thinking. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not ready to go that far yet. Alison is a checkuser, so she may be in possession of data that we are not aware of (like other socks). If these are the only two accounts, then that's not a good block. If there are 37 accounts, then that's different. --B (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She told me she has not performed a checkuser. I thought the results needed to be publicly disclosed anyway? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and in a lot of cases, particularly with real names or IP addresses, they cannot be public about details out of respect for privacy. If (hypothetical, not this case) a user edits with two named accounts and an IP and most of the abuse occurs from the IP, the checkuser might block all of them with {{checkuserblock}} but not reveal the connection to the IP (unless you just look at the logs and put 2+2 together). Even abusive users have the right not to have their IPs revealed. --B (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the block's irrational. No history of abusive edits. A possible timing coincidence isn't enough to indef block a user. Maybe a checkuser's the solution here. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison is a checkuser. --B (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But she doesn't seem to have performed a checkuser, as she seems confused as to who this account belongs to, if anyone; and User:One Night In Hackney seems to know better. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know plenty about this. For starters check the block log, isn't it a tiny bit suspicious that the unblock came 24 hours after after the account was unblocked and reblocked, despite the initial block being in February? What's going on here is a known sockpuppeteer is attempting to discredit an admin who was in full possession of the evidence by pretending to be an innocent victim. This, depite the main account being caught in the autoblock when MrsBucket was reblocked. Now if you really on-Wiki evidence feel free, but this unblock from a known sockpuppet account (and there's others too in the report) is a clear attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and the sockpuppetry is pretty damn abusive as well. So if you really want the SSP report which will probably results in major problems for another of your cronies please keep banging the same drum as you are now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) All I want to know is why Alison blocked this account as RMS (who claims it isn't him, although it may well be) yet you seem to have pulled User:Kittybrewster's name out of the air and credited him with this, why is that so? Thus it's really a question to you (an ordinary wikipedia editor), how did you come to the conclusion that this account belongs to Kittybrewster? I hope you can understand why I wonder about this, Thanks.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is available if you want it, and it's damning. After all, you've seen my checkuser and sockpuppet reports remember? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman ring any bells? As I say, if you want a formal SSP report go right ahead, but the consequences are likely to be much more severe than a sockpuppet account being blocked, especially considering the timing of this unblock request. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be so threatening. The evidence as I see it is that this account (MrsBucket) edited for c. 15 days and made no controversial edits (AfD, Arb. coms, etc) therein likes the difference (to the Sussexman case) surely? I was under the impression that only abusive use of sockpuppets is outlawed, as I've seen numerous established editors admit to using other accounts within policy. Please don't view this as my being confrontation, I just wonder why Alison thought this belonged to RMS (fair enough, she's an admin., that's her prerogative) yet you seem to think it belongs to Kittybrewster. I'm not asking for any formal procedure or any argument, I just want to know your secret... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most people would say using three different accounts to edit the same article is abusive, and interchanging between two accounts multiple times during the same day for no discernible reason is also abusive. Or if they don't, I'm sure they'll say that using a sockpuppet account to comment on an ANI discussion about the main account is abusive. Alison was originally mistaken with her block, and I corrected her and provided her with ample evidence that the account was in fact another editor. Given that this account (and the other sockpuppet) had stopped editing at the time and the main account was being used (due to the intervention of another admin off-Wiki, who said the use of multiple accounts wasn't on and instructed the editor accordingly - emails regarding this available to admins on request) the block wasn't that relevant anyway. However this suspicously timed unblock request puts things into a rather different perspective. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user above says that Kittybrewster (if he owns this alleged sock) made no edits during the period this was in use. Anyway, I'm going to get some sleep. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster wouldn't need to, he was editing using two other different accounts during the time period in question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where's your evidence for this? As I can see a breach of policy will only occur if a user uses a sockpuppet to support another account belonging to them. If the agent does not support the principal (or vice versa) how can there be a breach, sock-puppets are only against policy when used abusively and voting on an AfD (etc.) using one is not, in itself, abusive. PS, are you a check-user ONiH? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]