Revision as of 22:01, 19 June 2008

Archives

Index of archives

Sock puppet of Pete K

An IP address in the same IP range, 75.35.23.210 (talk · contribs), is again editing the PLANS article now that the two-week ban of sock puppets of Pete K is over. Hgilbert (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And now two more times and also Talk:Anthroposophy one time. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to bother you with this. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nyannrunning Sockpuppets

I just wanted to thank you for doing all that work regarding the Nyannrunning sockpuppet case. Wildhartlivie and I have been dealing with that whole situation for ages and it's nice to see someone finally take the time to make all the connections. Again, thank you so much! Pinkadelica 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I worked hard on that case, so it feels good to hear you thank me. I hope to continue helping the community. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I too want to thank you. It has been, as you can probably tell, a long battle to prove something that we knew was the case. I appreciate your hard work and support on this case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd)

I suggest we block the sock to discourage this behavior. The sock has not been used since the case was raised, which strongly implies that there's not a real person who has been unjustly accused. David Justin should continue to edit under his own name. (I think it's unlikely that David Justin has forgotten how to sign in. You'll see here that he stopped editing under his own name on 27 April 2006 and resumed again on 6 March 2007 without a problem. A checkuser on the sock could be compared with the earlier Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin might yield some interesting results. Spiro Keats (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send this to User talk:Rlevse. He's the administrator I consult when I can't handle a situation on my own. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Richard Stern

I sincerely appreciate your strong delete recommendation on my page. It seems you're the only one around here who understands what's happening and the unreal sense that I have no control over it. So, thank you. Lazydork (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hdayejr and his socks

Since you closed the sock case, does that mean that all the ranges we found he operates on have been blocked aswell?— Dædαlus / Improve\ 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reopen the case, seems more IPs are surfacing.— Dædαlus / Improve\ 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Yisrael Rozen

Done, it's at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Yisrael Rozen. --Golbez (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: SSP

Peace friend, and thank you for the analysis on the situation. I initially reacted pretty badly as Elonka pointed out, though in my defense if you check the guy's comments on her talk page he was pretty open about hurling all sorts of personal insults at me and I reacted as most people would. It's good to have a third party perspective from someone not directly involved. I hope we can get this whole thing sorted out soon, it seems rather obvious to me that this is the same guy back with a vengeance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename on en.wikibooks

I have renamed your account on en.wikibooks to b:en:User:Shalom Yechiel, as per your request. If you have any questions or comments about this, let me know. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Re "Keep PJHaseldine gives a valid rationale for having this page in his userspace. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)". How is this valid? It violates several wiki policies. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it such a case, go ahead and edit the archive, noting it was an ec. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

rfa thank ye

Just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. You may find my in-depth analysis at User talk:Xenocidic/RFA interesting, I'm seeking community input on a number of issues. there's also some standard thank-spam below for you. xenocidic (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Thanks

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

rename on simple@wiki

I renamed you as request on simple.wiki, thanks. --.snoopy.  08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your work on creating the article and deeply covering the topic Electricity on Shabbat. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Vandalism archive

The most recent archive you created seems to span 2007-8, but there is still a lot of material on the current talk page from 2007, and the stuff from 2008 all seems to be at the top of the page. Something seems to have gone wrong here, though I stopped watching this page in one of my increasingly regular cut-backs in the number of pages I watch. It seems to have become a bit of a shambles - there are many unanswered questions, stuff is out of order, the page needs archiving again... you can sort of understand why I promote page maintainers, no? Richard001 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Kfar Hananya

Done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review on User talk:SlimVirgin

This page is not deleted therefore a deletion review is moot. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

False Sockpuppet Accusation

Shalom, I have posted the following on the talk page of User:Rossami as well as the talk page of User:VanTucky. I simply ask that you do what is fair. FYI, my home IP address was blocked shortly after my first post, so I was unable to write again for a few days after that post.

"Rossami, I am writing to request help in mediating a matter involving a false accusation and the tarnishing of my reputation. I am a new user and my first post was here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_23 regarding a Zulupad page. At the end of the deletion review log User:Shalom had the following to say about me:

"Housekeeping note: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi - There is legitimate suspicion, but no solid proof, that User:Cyber Shepherd may be a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi. Regardless, Cyber Shepherd has no edits outside this DRV and his userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"

Unless User:Shalom would like to prove or disprove this suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi by conducting a checkname or performing some other verification test, then I feel that

User:Shalom should rescind his accusation. User User:VanTucky also cast his doubts about my existence as a real person. Can these users either prove their case or redact their statements?

If this is not the correct place to request this kind of help, I apologize--I am new to WikiPedia. However, I am a real person, I do work at Teachers College, Columbia University, and I do intend to (attempt) to create and add positively to WikiPedia. Please help with this matter or least instruct me where a more appropriate forum for this kind of grievance might be. Many thanks." --Cyber Shepherd (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)

Hello Shalom. Fraberj is already blocked indef. Isn't that appropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

RFAR in re CSCWEM

Hi. Per CSCWEM's contribs, I edited your statement at the Request for Arbitration to correct the date of CSCWEM's last edit from 2007 to 2008. FYI; I figured it was a simple enough change that you would not mind, but didn't want to do so without leaving a note - especially since it's Arbcom. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up that sockpuppetry case. I've added an IP to it. I haven't used Twinkle to file a case before, but it appears to be broken (sockpuppets didn't get listed, notifications didn't get posted). I guess I go back to doing it manually... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just filed a report about that same issue. Glad to know it's not just me. _{TravellingCari} 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

SIRCAMS

Hi, thanks for changing the name of SIRCAMS to it's extended acronym, but if you could change it back that'd be great. People only know it as SIRCAMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAStokes (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinically prohibited activities of Shabbat

Just thought you may be interested in working on or somehow contributing to a new article I am in the process of constructing, Rabbinically prohibited activities of Shabbat. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:86.154.178.231 et al. sock puppet accusations

Frania W. has unilaterally deleted FactStraight's apology to me and your removal of my name from the list of "suspects" from the Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets page. It is my personal opinion that she did this out of anger that I previously mentioned her name in the discussion. Can she arbitrarily make me a suspect again and erase an apology from the person who originally made the accusation? I responded to her charges, but I have dealt with her in the past over a controversy regarding the capitalization of certain forms of French royal styles at 18:12, April 24, 2008 UTC and fear that she has been prejudiced against me ever since. BoBo (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I never thought you were anyone's sockpuppet to begin with, and I have not changed my mind. I can't answer the other problems right now. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yechiel: I have gone thru all the comments of the above dispute & noticed that after my (first) comment on 9 June following yours of 7 June, FactStraight's apology was deleted & BoBo's name was back on the list. I have no idea how this happened and was surprised when after reading the whole thing I saw BoBo's name back. At the time, I believed it had been done by an Administrator. I certainly do not remember erasing anyone's comment but, if I did, it was accidental. Please remove BoBo's name from list of suspected sock puppets. Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards on SS7 article

Thanks for looking into the false sock puppet claim that was made against me. I wonder if you could be so kind as to offer advice on the ongoing dispute from which the sock puppet claim arose here Talk:Signaling_System_7? Leedryburgh (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-birthday

Template:Uw-birthday has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon

Thanks for the note. I'm not really familiar with what needs to be done here. I'd suggest you contact the other admin who was working the case because I'm a bit new at this and not really certain what next steps ought to be. _{TravellingCari} 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was I'm not too familiar with blocking socks that aren't actively disruptive if there hasn't been a check-user done. _{TravellingCari} 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Understand, thanks for the tutorial. SSPs are new to me. Finishing now. _{TravellingCari} 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:ER

Fixed now? delldot talk 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what it was? Someone had added {{archive}} to one of their reviews, but left it transcluded to the page. That template has the noeditsection thing to repress the edit sections. So that's why when I archived that one, it fixed it. Just saying so you know to look for that next time it comes up. Peace, delldot talk 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Totophi sockpuppets

I was wondering if you were going to go ahead and close out the sockpuppet case/block Totophi. No one seems to have done anything in a while.Nrswanson (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Matter resolved. Thank you for your help.Nrswanson (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA for davidwr redux

Thanks for confirming the offer. As much as it would be handy to have tool access for some projects I'm working on, I'm going to hold off a bit before accepting your nomination. Thanks for the review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Amacmunn SSP

Thanks for this. I'm learning my way in that arena and feedback is good. And I just realised this was a new account name and i knew you under User:Shalom so nice to "see" you again. _{TravellingCari} 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RReagan007

I do not deny that I sometimes edit from that IP address instead of logging in, but I do not do that for bad purposes. Usually I either just forget to log in, or I have several different browsers open and I'm logged in on 1 browser and just don't remember to log into the other 1. I have looked at the talk page for the IP address and I do see the negitive stuff you are referring to. But none of the vandalism from this IP address was done by me. I did not even start editing wikipedia articles at all until January of this year, and the vandalism I saw was all from before that. I'm also not familiar with how IP addresses work, but it might be possible that more than 1 person shares this IP address. Again, I have never intentionally vandalised any wikipedia page, and none of the edits from this IP address could have been done by me before January 2008. If you have any questions about this for me please feel free to ask. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:M.V.E.i.

Hi there, I think the user is back again despite his community ban. The new user User:SharpNail was created at 14:55 today, just two hours after his latest sockpuppet User:MaIl89 had his unblock refused. The new user has so far:

• Referred to User:Protagon on their talk page, who was the first person to bring a sockpuppetry case against User:M.V.E.i..
• Admitted that they are a sockpuppet account, albeit with claims that they will behave themselves this time.
• Continued a thread at Talk:Russians, which User:MaIl89 started
• Used very similar spelling/grammatical errors to previous incarnations.

Despite the user's insistence that they are making a clean start, this is clearly a block evasion. Do you think it's worth taking this to checkuser? I don't think we'll have much luck with the ban if it's already been broken after 2 hours! Papa November (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hdayejr Confirmed!

To save you of going to the page, I'll just transclude it for you below. Also, seems Landofpartinggifts was also a sock of mine. Had me fooled.

Hdayejr

• Hdayejr (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 65.31.32.222 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.29.177.155 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.29.192.218 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.29.201.137 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.31.102.232‎ (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.14.87.157 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.9.23.81 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.9.237.26 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.9.243.200‎ (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.62.241.139 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.59.120.112 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 72.60.209.103 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.249.0.73 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.192.44.39 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.201.216.124 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.205.195.159 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.205.236.49 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: F

• Supporting evidence:

This list was taken from Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Hdayejr (2nd). The evidence for each IPs inclusion in the list is as per their contributions which show a style of editing similar to that of the banned sock master.

The most recent IP to surface is 71.62.241.139. Please note this diff where the IP in question makes a remark about another editor which the sock master has been known to constantly harrass, to the page of one of his previous IP socks.— Dædαlus / _Improve 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed. also Landofpartinggifts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a load off my mind... at least for the moment. Happy blocking!— Dædαlus / _Improve 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For dealing with my case so patiently and understandingly :) Fone4Me 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that Jack Forbes (the person who nominated me for sockpuppetery), has accused you of being an "incompetant admin". This is a personal attack, and I suggest a temporary block or warning for that behaviour alone, but this, coupled with the fact that the user seems to have an inibility to accept any oppinions other than his own, and has been continuing this abuse for a while now would suggest to me a potentially longer block. Cheers. --Fone4Me 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)