Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello! Two quick thoughts: 1) I hate to see someone indeffed only on a "likely" when the other account hasn't edited in years and the checkuser didn't report any other active socks; 2) in an instance like this, i.e. where the original block for sockpuppetry was back in 2007, i.e. two years ago, and Jupiter Optimus Maximus does have some constructive edits, should we give him another chance so long as no ongoing sockpuppetry is occuring, i.e. given the precedents of User:WillOakland, User:Jack Merridew, User:Doctorfluffy, etc. (I can think of several other instances off hand, but don't want to get carried away)? Best, --A Nobody01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
When results come back likely that is almost as good as confirmed, it just simply means it is not 100%. With that in mind, if the user decides to post a unblock request I am more than willing to reduce his block, and currently he violated WP:SOCK and per precedent that results in a indef block. Tiptoety04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Four observations: 1) given his username, i.e. a deity, I wonder if the "lesser beings" bit is supposed to be humorous/ironic rather than what it might initially appear as; 2) I could perhaps see why someone might feel miffed if five of the articles he created were nominated for deletion in a row by the same person (all articles were kept, so it is not as if these were disruptive articles he created); 3) I know from past experience that "likely" does not always actually mean it's the same person; and 4) he does appear to have a block notification on his talk page, which could be why he is asking for clarification. With that said, I am not excusing any actual personal attacks or anything else, but only want us to be objective in examining things and not read too much into things or lose the context. Sincerely, --A Nobody18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm rather lost as to how the page should be "activated", among other things. Any help would be welcome.
As an aside, shouldn't a checkuser request be easier/more intuitive/require less WP:BURO? Anything to streamline the intro page to make it easier would also be most welcome. - jc3712:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Like Lucas states on his talk page, the best place to discuss this is on the talk page. As for the issues of not knowing which "wizard" box to use, it is actually fairly easy. If you want to file a case but not request a CheckUser (much like the old SSP) then you use then first box, if you want to file a case with a CheckUser request accepted, use the second box. Once you have hit submit fallow the instructions and replace the items it tells you to replace with usernames, code letters, ect... Tiptoety20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on your expertise with WP:SPI, where should a report based on User:Barneca/Sandboxen/Sandbox go; as a case, or an IP check? I'm 100% confident it's the same person and all socks are blocked, I'd just like additional socks flushed out and the feasibility of a range block looked at by a Checkuser; that would go in the Quick Checkuser section, right? --barneca (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on what outcome you are looking for. If you simply want the underlining IP to be blocked, as the accounts are already indef'd, then the "quick section" is appropriate. If you are wanting the CheckUsers to look for sleepers, or you think keeping a record of this users blocked socks and CheckUser cases is a good idea than I recommend filing a case. Remember, anything in the "quick check section" does not get archived nor do CheckUsers regularly look back at the page history to see if any checks were run. I think in this specific case a "quick case" was perfectly fine. Tiptoety17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Apologies for peppering you with requests, I'm not sure when I have to do a completely new sock report and when a simple request is adequate. WLU(t)(c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hold off on that sock report. Currently someone broke the whole page, and the requests are not getting handled. I will just block the sock. Tiptoety19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You can break whole pages? Cool! Don't tell me how, I might try it. I'll wait until I've bit more time and the page ain't broke no more, then look into something official. WLU(t)(c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:P Well, not so much break the page...as more break the bot that operates the page. Anyways, you are welcome. Tiptoety19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Rollback
As far as I can tell by roughly looking at my contribs, I've made somewhere around 7000 edits (possibly more or less) in the last 8 months since I was last blocked, and except for reverting vandalism, I don't believe I have reverted any editor more than once in a 24 hour period, although there might be a few exceptions that I may have missed; in fact I do believe there was one incident where I reverted an editor twice. As for my three blocks, the first was for reverting an editor three times in a 24 hour period, the second was erroneous, as I was blocked for reverting scibaby vandalism on sight three times, and the third was for making three reverts to the same article I was originally blocked from in the first place, a year later. In other words, in all three instances I was not blocked for violating 3RR (even though Madman claims I was in the edit summary; he never retracted in the edit summary but he did retract on my talk page and another administrator came forward to criticize the block). As for the other two blocks, I have made three exceptional changes to insure that I was not blocked again, including permanently leaving the article of which I was the primary contributor; abstaining from editing alongside the editor I was involved in the edit war with, and; leaving that particular WikiProject altogether to avoid running into the same editor by accident. Since that time, eight months have passed with little if any problems to report, and during that time I have continued to revert vandalism to Hawaii-related articles. I believe that I do not have a history of disruptive editing, however, I did have a problem with a particular editor on a particular article who worked on a particular project, and I believe that I successfully eliminated that problem eight months ago by ignoring the editor, removing myself from the article, and unsubscribing from the project. Does this alleviate your concerns? Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate this note, and it does help to shed some light on your block log. That said I would like to wait for another administrator to comment before I take any action. Tiptoety04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's at least make it interesting. How about inviting any one (or all) of the admins in my block log to weigh in for a quick heads-up review? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Your warning on my talk page I took in stride. I accepted that since Snowspinner had reverted blindly twelve times he'd get a warning, and that my one (or two if we're being draconian) reverts mean that to be "even handed" I got a note as well. However, as I'm gathering the impression that either you didn't bother to look at the facts or tacitly approve of his behavior, that acceptance is up in the air.
With respect to the Infantilism-centric editor, let be very direct: How much of the time between seeing the thread on Ani and dropping your opinion bomb did you spend looking over the situation? Did you read the two years of archives where outside conflicts were brought onto Misplaced Pages, or the seemingly endless rounds of accusations and recriminations when others disagree with this editor? Would you like to raise your hand and assist with these articles?
I'm happy to have my conduct reviewed. I'm happy to accept criticism. But the sort of facile, surface, drive-by interactions that you've contributed to date I am certainly not happy to have.
You are right. The comment I just made at AN/I was in no way productive. That said, please put it in prospective to your comment. Also, you are right, I spent no time researching the history behind the issue in which was brought to AN/I but instead simply commenting based upon the current discussion where it was clear you were unhappy because things were not going your way. As for the Phil dispute, I have no stake in it; matter of fact I have never interacted with him. I in no way condone his behavior anymore than I do yours. So please, do not say I am "taking sides". I also have looked into the history of the Tori Amos dispute so please do not say I have not done that either. Tiptoety04:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm concerned as an adminstrator by being on the recieving end of interactions that I would find difficult to see happen to another editor.
Hey... It's been more than 6 months since Freakazoid is protected. Could you give it a try and unprotect it for some time? It's been long enough, I think. Thanks! --Koala (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you could comment on this block a bit further. It seems like behavior-wise, (1) J.O.M.'s contributions have not been problematic (no prior blocks or major warnings, only some disagreements), and (2) any overlap has been in editing a pop-culture domain where coincidences may be reasonably likely. Your Lord was blocked for recreating deleted material (originally) which so far as I know is not an issue with J.O.M. And it sounds like the checkuser outcome wasn't a complete confirmation; Your Lord is known to edit on the 81.x.x.x range but this is a large range with dynamic addresses. Also, Your Lord is often said to be especially interested in Family Guy topics and I don't see this as an interest of J.O.M. at all. I'm inclined to say that if JOM's edits aren't disruptive in themselves and if this connection is shaky, we should unblock. Mangojuice21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is. J.O.M. deliberately recreated merged articles under new names, despite having claimed to accept the redirects. His edits are also disruptive, ignoring consensus, recreating copyvio materials, and, as you might notice on his talk page and his comments to others, making personal attacks. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there are some regrettable comments he has made, but his arguments when not commenting on editors in AfDs seem reasonable and his article creation worthwhile. The Your Lord account hasn't edited since 2007. If someone has been mostly constructive in a year and a half of editing, maybe we should extend a second chance on the condition that we will not tolerate personal attacks and assurance that limitation to one account. I can think of others with worse histories of incivility (even harassment) and sockpuppetry that we gave second chances to when we saw potentially good edits. I of course do not endorse any of the less than civil comments Collectonian alludes to and if the checkuser turned up active socks, then I would understand, but when two account's edit histories don't overlap, then it's more of block evasion or starting over fresh than sockpuppetry and if the mainspace edits are worthwhile then that should count for something. Best, --A Nobody02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There is at least one major difference between those given other changes and JOM. They admitted to their sockpuppetry, apologized, and repented. JOM refuses to admit what he is doing and is stead playing the victim and continue to try to pretend they are not his socks. Also, this is YourLord's third known sock, not the first, which is very clearly sockpuppetry. JOM's account was created within days of one sock being discovered and identified. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The blocked was based on the checkuser evidence, and I don't have a lot of time to comment. I trust that my fellow administrators can review the unblock request and take what ever action deemed appropriate. Cheers, Tiptoety06:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: JOM has confessed to being YourLord, and YourLord has previously been accused of sockpuppetry twice and blocked for it once (User:Illustrious One). See User talk:Jupiter Optimus Maximus#Request for unblock. He has, in fact, also had prior blocks and numerous warnings. If you check his talk page and archive, you'll see multiple warnings and messages about NOR, disruptive comments, 3RR, and edit-warring. You'll also see a block for incivility. Just wanted to note these things because Mangojuice mentioned that "J.O.M.'s contributions have not been problematic (no prior blocks or major warnings, only some disagreements)" and that statement seems very inaccurate. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, could you see your way to unprotecting User talk:YourLord? Ryulong protected it in June 2007 because after his block YourLord had continued to use it as a bit of a chat forum. Given the sockpuppet findings, if YourLord/Illustrious One/Jupiter Optimus Maximus is going to make further unblock requests, he's probably going to have to do it from his original account (per WP:SOCK) which he can't do if that account's talk page is full-protected. Protecting the page has also prevented other editors from leaving subsequent messages and templates, including ones related to the sockpuppetry cases. If Ryulong wanted to prevent YourLord from editing his own talk page, he simply could have extended the block to include that page; full-protecting the talk page wasn't really necessary (and prevented YourLord from following the steps he'd been advised to demonstrate his ability to make positive contributions; probably what led him to start socking). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
He seems as if he wants to be unblocked, so should we start an ANI thread that is transcluded (right use of word?) to his talk page so he can participate? Also, he might not still have the passwords for his old account. Best, --A Nobody05:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Tiptoety! Since you're listed under the category of adnimistrators willing to grant rollback requests (and I've seen you mark some requests at WP:RFP/R today), should Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk·contribs) have their rollback removed due to sockpuppetry and being blocked indefinitely? Thanks. SF323:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom left that up in the air on purpose, in hopes that administrators would use common sense when enforcing their finding. That said, the internet safety law(s) generally refer to "internet minors" if you will as those 14 and younger. I think there is a legal page linked in the RfAr somewhere that provides more information. Hope that helps, Tiptoety03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Would this also apply to eight year olds who in all likelihood are being supervised by parents and/or teachers? I've run into a few but haven't kept track of them until recently. Also, in the case of editors like User:Howdoyoudo08, where he has blanked his userpage now, but much info is still available through revision history, is that OK? He has mentioned being able to attend a Wiki meetup so I assume he is the son of another big-time Misplaced Pages editor. Soap /Contributions04:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the Online Privacy Protection Act, minors with their parents or legal guardians permission may post personal information, but because we have to sure way of knowing if they really have their guardians permission we just have to be smart about it. As for the page blanking, we just have to use common sense. There are times when deleting the page may be applicable, or just deleting certain revisions. While there are other times blanking it will work just fine. Tiptoety20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
forum shopping
would it be forum shopping to report someone simultaneously to edit warring after you've notified ANI for their incivility? or would the single report to ANI make the other report unnecessary? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you already started a AN/I thread I see no reason to file a AN3 report as the persons conduct is already being discussed. That said, the community may ask that you take it to AN3 so that other uninvolved users may get involved. As for forum shopping, if you are making the report in good faith then I see no reason to call it that. Tiptoety03:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to make more reverts, but you should probably take a look at recent actions by User:Igny. I think he is repeatedly trying to unilaterally delete two articles, one of which was decided to be kept at AfD, and another, Aleksei Mikheyev is a valid BLP article. Here are the diffs: this is an article that was "kept" at an AfD and this is another article. This user knows he should use AfD instead, but he did not listen. Please note that Igny has an editing restriction, as logged in Digwuren case.Biophys (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. I think your repeated attempts to go against consensus, multiple edit wars, forking information with tendentious titles requires to put the same restriction on you, Biophys. (Igny (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
And I want to point out that Biophys' recent disruptive editing goes against the consensus that Mikheyev v. Russia is a proper title for the information in the article which he tries to recreate to fork the info. AfD is not for requests to move nor for requests to merge. (Igny (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
What consensus? There was none. If there was a consensus, you had to place a note at "suggested moves" noticeboard.Biophys (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There were suggestion to move at the previous AfD, and my suggestion to move at the talk page did not have any objections, so I moved, and several editors expressed support for the move. If you did less edit warring and more discussing you would see that yourself, there are talk pages you know. And you are not the person who can give me advice what I had to do. I do not think it is proper to drag the tired community to yet another pointless vote. These AfDs, RfCs, ANIs, admin talk pages are flooded enough with complaints of disgruntled editors, participating in this ridiculous "Eastern battleground". But if you insist on this, why didn't you request the move back to the previous title after I moved it? Why did you try to fork the information? (Igny (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
Please note Tiptoety, Biophys is acting in a very tendentious manner. He made numerous claim in the AfD that "almost everyone in Russia knows this term", and when asked ignored numerous requests from myself, User:Ezhiki and other editors, asking for sources to show that the term has been used widely (which would have to be done for almost everyone to have heard of it). After being called on this utter b/s, he then claims that he heard of this term long before this case, of course it's more utter b/s, because all evidence points to it being created by one of his favourite yellow journalists. He is now being asked again. Biophys, please provide a single source from a major Russian newspaper which demonstrates your claim that almost everyone in Russia could possibly know of this term (a low-circulation fringe newspaper, with a history of making wild accusations without proof, is not an acceptable source, particularly as the term seems to have been created by them), and also show me a single source which uses this term outside of the Mikheyev v. Russia case. Your ignoring and refusal to either answer these questions, or even acknowledge that the use of the term is only within the confines of this case, is absolutely tendentious. I am here, as I am sure others are too, to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in pushing fringe theories and advocacy. When numerous editors who are not here for those latter reasons put up an argument that is entirely backed up by the sources being used, and move an article to its actual notable term, perhaps one really needs to think about why they are on the project, and why they are defending what numerous editors disagree with. People may be willing to "trust Biophys on this" (that was a comment from the Afd which resulted in it being speedy kept), but there are those of us who do not trust Biophys so quickly, simply because he continually refuses to answer relevant and pertinent questions which are asked of him, not just on this article, but on many. --Russavia15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
←Having not fully done my homework, and having come into this a bit late in the game here is what I see:
Strong consensus (found here) against "deleting" Phone Call to Putin, and in support of the article renaming in its full state. As such I am seeing little justification for Igny's actions here, though he does state there is some consensus to support his actions. I would would be interested in seeing that.
Edit warring on the part of both Igny and Biophys. While it is nothing worth (yet) taking any administrative action for, I do not think all of this is simply Igny's doing and I urge all parties to find a better way to deal with this. Possibly WP:DRV?
For once I am not seeing a whole lot of incivility, which is good.
As for Russavia's comment, I am not sure I see what you see. The reason Biophys has been attempting to gain so much consensus is so that he can avoid situations like this one. Now, I will not comment on the way he has been going about doing it because frankly I have not put the time in to looking into it, but you make some fairly serious claims. Claims that if true paint a very dim picture of another editor. If you do indeed have diffs of such behaviour, maybe a RFC/U would be in order.
I am not (and will not) comment on the content dispute itself, as that is not my role here. Should any further edit warring continue on anyone's part, blocks will be issued. But seriosuly, I really don't want to do that, so maybe we can all talk out our differences?
Tiptoety20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Done