Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 22 April 2008 (→Brandt RfD: further). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFCU needs a second look

- Jehochman 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. I have attempted to match up the socks again at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. Could you have a second look at that one too? Jehochman 13:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Osli73

I made the following posting on the Administrators Noticeboard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Osli73_violating_parole.2C_repeat_violator

Fairview360 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User Osli73 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73 has a history of willfully violating probations including the use of sockpuppets on articles related to the former Yugoslavia.

One can see at the bottom of this arbitration webpage that he has been blocked repeatedly for willfully violating sanctions placed against his edit warring and sockpuppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties

For example:

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) 3 months per 1 month tthis AE post. Please note this is Osli's fourth block. --wL<speak·check> 07:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for 2 weeks for breaking the revert limit on Srebrenica massacre; also banned from editing Srebrenica massacre for 3 months. Thatcher131 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for directly violating his probation and revert parole at Srebrenica massacre. --Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Osli73 (talk · contribs) for one week for directly violating his probation and revert parole by using a sockpuppet to edit war at Srebrenica massacre. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked KarlXII (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Osli73 (talk · contribs) proven by checkuser. --Srikeit 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On March 19, 2008, Osli73 received the following probation from administrator Thatcher explicitly forbidding Osli73 from more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bosnian_Mujahadin , http://en.wikipedia.org/Mujahideen

Your topic ban is lifted and replaced with a revert parole. You may edit Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen but for one month (from 17 March) you are limited to one revert per article per week. Obvious vandalism is excepted from the revert limit, but you should take care in distinguishing true vandalism from content disputes. You are permitted to revert the edits of banned users such as Grandy Grandy/The Dragon of Bosnia but you should be extremely careful in doing so, because if it turns out the editor you are reverting is not a sockpuppet of the banned user you will have violated the revert limit. It would be better to report suspected sockpuppets to WP:AE or WP:RFCU. Thatcher 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

see user Osli73 talk page for the above probation notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Osli73

Despite the explicit probation against more than one revert per week on the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles, user Osli73 has again engaged in edit warring, reverting the Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles repeatedly, for example Osli made the following 8 reverts to the Bosnian Mujahideen and Mujahideen articles from April 8 to April 14: diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205563168

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205562519

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205439461

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205437228

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=205144618

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204899529

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204888935

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian_mujahideen&diff=prev&oldid=204184557

From his statements, Osli73 has shown that he fully understands the restrictions placed upon him. From his actions, he has shown that he is not willing to abide by those restrictions.

I am notifying the administrators that have sanctioned Osli73 in the past as well as notifying Osli73 of this posting. Especially with articles involving the former Yugoslavia, it is imperative that users respect the limits placed upon their editing. If the more vitriolic editors involved in former Yugoslavia articles see that Osli73 is not held accountable for his his transgressions, then there is greater likelihood of out-of-control edit warring as there has been in the past. Fairview360 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This information was moved from the Administrators notice board to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Osli73. As you placed the sanction on Osli73 (User talk:Osli73#Article ban) perhaps you would like to comment and/or close the debate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Willirennen

Hi Thatcher. I notice that User:Willirennen has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Knock-Off Nigel. I'd be interested to see the evidence that supports this. In my experience, Willirennen has been nothing but a valauble contributor to the encyclopedia (I realise that the two aren't mutually exclusive). I note that there is also a User talk:WilliRennen (i.e. with a capital 'R'), which was created by User:Russ T who seems to be mostly involved in spamming about "Z cars": Is this possibly a case of mistaken identity? DH85868993 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Knock-Off Nigel and Willirennen are definitely sharing IP addresses and computers with the other names listed there are confirmed. Whether the accounts should all be blocked, or whether one (main) account should be left unblocked with a warning, is up to the admin who did the blocking. You should ask AGK, or ask for a block review at WP:ANI. Thatcher 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate dessert

You blocked him as a sockpuppet of Mr nibble (talk · contribs). What's the evidence? I can't see it in the contribs. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser. Several accounts created at the same time on the same IP in order to avoid the anon/ac block at his school (where he is vandalizing from). Thatcher 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. I figured that's what it was. When you block for sockpuppetry based on checkuser, whether there was or wasn't a formal request for it, can you at least say that? It's useful to know in reviewing unblock requests. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually try to do that. Thatcher 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG

I copy and paste PHG's own explanation against the accusation to the RFCU page. Is the anon quacking PHG as the assumption of Jehochman and Kafka Liz, Elonka? Well, I don't think so.--Appletrees (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not give out my e-mail to strangers

Who are you and what is this about?Nrswanson (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, I am divinediscourse. I took a look at your user history to see what the issue might be. I don't mix that account with this one. I only really use that one for AFD discussions. Is that not allowed? If so I will stop immidiately. I didn't think it was sock puppeting because I don't edit together. But I am happy to comply with what is correct.Nrswanson (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail and thank you for treating me with care. I really appriciate that. Not every editor would have you know.Nrswanson (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin

How do I contact Mike Godwin?--Urban Rose 12:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

His email address is on his user page. Thatcher 12:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Contacted Mike Godwin

I have contacted Mike Godwin with a brief summary of Grawp's vandalism and a request that he allow the release of Grawp's IP address.--Urban Rose 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandt RfD

The closing admin of the DRV, Prodego explicitly agreed that this should go to RfD. I strongly urge you to reverse your premature close. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly cherry-pick his comments that way if you want to,

While I agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD

however he closes with,

I find the most compelling arguments, and the best reasoning, to be that those wishing to learn about Brandt will learn nothing about him at the PIR article, and therefore this redirect is quite worthless...it is quite clear that this is truly a valueless redirect."

Thatcher 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong discussion. Look at User:Prodego/archive/61#Daniel_Brandt — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the concept that the way to appeal a deletion is to use a "lower-ranked" process. Fewer people watch RfD; there is a hierarchy of deletion discussions for a reason. Attempts to restore deleted content are routinely sent to DRV, no one would argue that I can restore an article deleted through AfD and demand that it go through Prod or AfD again. If the problem is that there is no way to appeal a "wrongly decided" DRV, then welcome to the ranks of other disgruntled editors whose articles are deleted and endorsed and find themselves at the top of the process ladder with no where else to go. Final processes are meant to be final. Consensus changes, and no discussion is ever final (for better or worse) but in my judgement as an admin, DRV is the appropriate venue. If you can find someone who thinks differently, they can use their discretion and judgement to reverse me. Thatcher 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment from Prodego was: "My view is: I don't think it is necessary, and will not do it myself. But I have no problems if you do. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)" That is hardly an endorsement of the RFD. That is, "Sure, do it if you want, since you're entitled to try anything." That's different than, "My close was bunk." Please. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It endorses another RfD as valid. And if you want I can get Prodego's permission to give you the emails also where Prodego and I discussed the matter in some detail. Lawrence you seem to persist in assuming that everyone else is twisting things. Please stop projecting. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harassing BLP subjects. Critical decisions like this are not made off-wiki. Mind yourself, since you're already on thin ice for socking. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Prodego, DRV is meant to be a final review, and if he did not have the strength of conviction to say, "I've made my decision, sorry you disagree, try again in 6 months" then he shouldn't have done the close at all. Or, if we was persuaded by your argument, he should have reversed the close, made a "vote" and asked someone else to close it. Thatcher 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)