Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 6 March 2014

Welcome to my talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

CU unblock request

DoRD, in reviewing an unblock request, I was unaware of the CU unblock policy and granted an unblock request beyond my authority at User talk:Stanleytux. I was made aware of my ill-informed actions by Ponyo on my talk page. I have reinstated the block and undone my subsequent actions as well as placed the unblock request in review status until you have a chance to look at it. I deeply apologize for any harm caused by my actions as the policy is quite clear. Regards, Mkdw 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkdw, for quickly reversing your action. I accept your apology, but it was a simple mistake, and no apology was necessary, really. I made that block while assisting Ponyo with an investigation, so her opinion should be sought as well. That being said, the user's latest request seems sincere, but I'm not really that familiar with their case other than their use of multiple accounts to edit Slim Burna and related articles. At a minimum, they will need to list all of their accounts before being unblocked, and they will have to understand that they may be subject to periodic checks. I have no objections to giving them a second chance, but someone more familiar with their overall behavior should really make the call. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw, I do have a couple comments that may impact the unblock. First, the editing performed by the known socks were very promotional in nature, so much so that I'm almost convinced that this is either paid promotion of Nigerian hip-hop musicians or a manager/record label exec acting on their behalf. Second, although the request appears sincere it only came about when semi-protection of the target article made it impossible to continue to IP hop to continue evading the block. Finally, if you do want to provide some rope by unblocking they will need to at the very least provide a complete list of socks, adhere to editing via one account only (with no purposeful unidentified logged-out edits), and a commitment to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. I'm curious whether they would even want to edit if they were topic-banned from Nigerian hip-hop articles? --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We may find that WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO will be difficult to enforce without a significant time commitment from someone to watch over it. Even then many users edit on the border of anything actionable which would be my concern. Do we have any reason to believe the IP's that have been locked out of the article are associated to this editor? I noticed today the editor supplied a list of socks. I think a topic-ban would need to be a last resort and even then would need a wider consensus to be applied than the three of us. I would only considering moving ahead with an unblock request approval or decline if we were all in agreement. I certainly won'y proceed if you have any reservations in terms of rope. In the short amount of time the editor was unblocked they did proceed very carefully and sought community input on their changes. Mkdw 02:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy new month Admin(s), thanks for accepting my request and giving me another chance. Regarding WP:PE, I want to make it clear that I have never and will never edit Misplaced Pages for monetary or any other forms of rewards or relationship reasons. I only edit articles if the subject is of interest to me. For instance, in the case of a musician probably I've heard his/her music or watched a live concert that fascinated me because that is what gives me the motivation to write about it and if it is notable and meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines. But since the issue has been brought up, you admins should also look into the case of the editor who identifies as a Liberian Citizen and not even a Nigerian nationality or residency on their well-decorated User Page yet has 90% Nigeria-related edits in their contribs history. At least, within the little time I've spent on the English Misplaced Pages, I've observed that about 95% (if not more) of editors have some sort of interest in their respective countries of citizenship. This I have not and do not see in this editor.

Also generally, I'm an editor who is mostly interested in Entertainment, especially music, I'm a fan of R&B, pop, soul, reggae, hip hop etc, so most times I create and edit articles related to music. And if I create an article about a particular subject and find out that I can also start/create articles related to that subject and if the subjects are notable and meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines I will definitely go on to create them. My reason for doing so is that creation of related articles makes the entire story I'm reporting on complete. Just like you can't give a complete account of former US president Bill Clinton's life and political career without talking about Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and others (see Book:Bill Clinton). So if I choose to write about a certain Nigerian musician who comes from a family where everyone including the subject's parents, spouse, children and musical partners are all notable, and meet guidelines to have a page on Misplaced Pages, I will definitely go ahead and create those articles unless there's a rule that states otherwise. Stanleytux (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stanleytux: For the amount of sock accounts you have created on Misplaced Pages, you do not deserve to be editing here; that's just my personal opinion. You should be thankful to the editors who have exonerated you. I, unlike you, write about notable musicians; the musicians I write about are musicians that have won several awards in Nigeria and have been featured in notable newspapers such as The Punch, Premium Times, Vanguard and P.M. News to name a few. You, on other hand, write about up and coming and local musicians from the Port Harcourt area who haven't gotten the national or international recognition every notable musician ought to have. Moreover, these artists are not featured in the aforementioned newspapers and have not won none of the notable awards in Nigeria. They do not even get nominated. To make things worse, Slim Burna and other artists that you've written about have one or two thousand followers on Twitter. This shows that they are not known nationally. If they were popular, they would have hundred of thousands of Twitter followers and their music videos would have surpassed millions of views on YouTube. As far as I'm concern, all of your edits have been directed towards local musicians from the Port Harcourt area. Also, I can edit any article I want to edit. Just because one is from a different country doesn't mean they can't edit articles relating to another country. Don't bring that tribalistic stuff to Misplaced Pages. This is an open source environment and everyone from all walks of life are welcome here. Misplaced Pages is not the place for people who create multiple accounts and used that as means to justify their point of view. And please, try to write about notable musicians. Stop writing about musicians that are barely known in Nigeria. versace1608 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Stanleytux: Please be very careful when placing accusations against other editors. Paid advocacy was brought up, but nothing actionable, was brought up with you considering the timing of the article locks, the huge number of sock puppet accounts, and your editing tendency. Basing anything on solely the percentile of edits and their nationality is no where close to legitimate grounds to single someone out with PE accusations or WP:SPI. Mkdw 07:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mkdw, I'm surprised that you are saying this, if you read what I wrote very well you will see that I never made any direct accusations to the editor, I'm even surprised they replied because that statement above really didnt't need a reply. Stanleytux (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They likely replied because you directly informed a number of sysops to investigate them for paid editing. "But since the issue has been brought up, you admins should also look into the case of the editor". That is clearly a direct accusation and I cannot see how you are surprised at their reaction or my comments. If this was not your intention then you should withdraw your suggestion that we investigate them. My response was to caution you. Mkdw 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if the statement sounded like a direct accusation to the editor, you and the other admins, I was only suspicious of their wiki behavior and editing pattern, and asked that they be checked as well. But it's ok now I withdraw my suggestion. Thanks. Stanleytux (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95 Trouble

Well, if this guy continues to circumvent blocks, then I think that we will need to take this to the Wikimedia Stewards. He's been causing a lot of damage to Misplaced Pages for at least 3 years now, and I would really like to see it stop without us having to block his accounts individually, or wait for the next sockpuppet to appear. I just want to see this stop, and if all of his accounts this year have originated from the same IP Range, the Stewards might be able to deal with that, since his edits certainly warrant their attention at this point (just like the time when a Steward got involved in July 2013). If they can't, then I don't know what we will do. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What would stewards do, though? --Rschen7754 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what would stewards do? LightandDark2000, you do realize that stewards are volunteers just like everyone else here, yes? You do realize that, other than making global versions of the same blocks local admins/CUs can make, that there is not much that they can do in this situation, either? Mostly, do you realize that global blocks are likely to adversely affect even more people than local blocks? Please understand: Yes, this is a disruptive sockpuppeteer, but taken in perspective, he is a very small blip in the statistics. We have had, and still have, much more disruptive people to deal with - and - the range blocks you're asking for would be exponentially more damaging to the project than anything this vandal is capable of. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean that Misplaced Pages has seen much more destructive vandals? I wonder how they were dealt with. Anyhow, this sockmaster's disruptive edits are extremely agitating, and I think that it would do everyone a lot of good if we could find some way to stop him from continuing to sock. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. If you do find some magick technique for blocking all disruptive socks whilst still allowing innocent folk to contribute I will personally start passing the hat around to collect donations to pay you handsomely for your discovery. --Jezebel'sPonyo 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser or an admin, so I'm afraid I don't know how to do any of that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, just so you know,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. ;) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Today I was elected as a steward. And I have to concur with what DoRD said above. --Rschen7754 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it isn't magic. But they've still got to have a lot more leverage than most other users. And congrats, Rschen7754, on becoming a Steward. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this guy part of the IP Range that you mentioned? Even if it isn't, I recommend a rangeblock on this IP, in order to prevent further abuse. If this IP Range is extremely large or active, then multiple smaller blocks should suffice. Additionally, another admin has told me that they can trace IPv6 addresses to the user's computer, so hopefully we can trace this guy and block off IP Ranges that are specific to his electronics. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DoRD, I've blocked LightandDark2000 for 24 hours. See here for an explanation of the trigger. I don't know what to do to get them to stop with their obsession. The creation of a user page and tag for an IP that I just blocked for a week as a result of an SPI was the last straw. I've warned them repeatedly that they shouldn't be tagging anyone, but tagging an IP is ridiculous. Anyway, if you want to unblock them, you don't need to consult with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't have an opinion regarding the block at the moment, but tagging a mobile IPv6 address is pointless. The block on the IP is likely to be completely ineffective too, though, since mobile IPs change so rapidly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 06:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Using Geolocate on IPv4 addresses is somewhat helpful in determining what kind of IP it is. That helps me sometimes decide how long a block to apply. I have much more trouble with IPv6 addresses. Any guidance as to what tool(s) to use and what to look for?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The tools for IPv6 are certainly fewer and less developed than those for IPv4, but the WHOIS link on the talk/contribs pages for that address show that it belongs to Verizon Wireless. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's why you said that a Rangeblock wouldn't be able to be used against such a range (as a whole). It's just fustration seeing what he's doing to articles and the crap he keeps putting on other user's pages. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas

Hey, DoRD, I pinged you on this. Perhaps you didn't see it or you don't wish to respond. I just need to know so it doesn't sit there in limbo. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the two latest suspects are on different ranges than any of the confirmed socks, so I'm not sure what to make of them, but I'll try to take another look later today. FYI, there might be another sockmaster here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Bbb23, but I did finally get around to running some checks in the case and have posted my results there. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I know how busy you are. Fortunately, I was off-wiki and the wonderful and tireless Callanec took care of all the clerking associated with the new sock farm.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests

So when an IP block-exempt user edits from an IP address, are any autoblocks on it lifted? Peter James (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, autoblocks will remain in place, but the exempt user will be able to edit through them. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If IP block exemption doesn't extend to other users there's no reason not to grant it. Peter James (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We only grant IPBE in extraordinary circumstances, and even then, only if it is really needed. In the case above, it is not needed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Would you be amenable to training me as a SPI Clerk, I know it's very busy and it needs assistance and I think that I am established enough to be able to help out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank your for your interest in helping out, but unfortunately, I don't really have the time to take on a trainee. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unblock

Hello DoRD. Regarding this, if you might have guessed how come I, someone without the tools felt the need to have a link to SPI case page of the blocked user, it was actually after this comment of Atama, that I thought it might be useful. After your concern, I have tried modifying it (the sandbox version) to become visible only when a page exists. So thought to let you know that if you think it is useful you may add it. -- SMS 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh...yes, your SPI link would have been useful in that situation. I have made a couple of slight modifications to your idea and left it in the sandbox. I know I've solved this problem before, but the answer is escaping me at the moment - your version leaves a space before the closing parenthesis if there isn't a case, and my version leaves no space before the dividing bullet point if there is a case. Anyway, I do think that the idea is a good one, so if you can get the formatting right, please feel free to incorporate it into the live template. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for that. Abce2 (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)