Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheTakeover (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 8 August 2011 (→Some help would be appreciated: forgot to add my signature.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, and welcome to my talk page. If I post on a talk page please respond there. I'll be watching it for a while. No need to {{talkback}} me unless you think I missed it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here (unless you request otherwise, here or on your talkpage), so please watch this page. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

SPI closure: Admin and checkuser roles

I have just closed Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Diogomauricio3, after you had acted as a checkuser in the case. For some reason doing so has prompted me to get round to asking about something I have often wondered about, but never before bothered to ask about. Frequently a checkuser reports a checkuser result on a SPI, and there seems to be nothing more to do, so the case may as well be closed. However, the checkuser, despite being also an administrator, does not close it. This happens so frequently that it encourages me to suspect that there is some policy, guideline, or accepted standard of practice that says the same person should not act in both capacities in the same case, but I can't find any documentation of that principle. Purely as a matter of interest, can you enlighten me? It always seems to me that it would save time and trouble for the checkuser/admin to finish the whole thing off in one go. (Completely irrelevant, but I feel like mentioning it. Before writing this message I looked at your user page, which as far as I remember I had never done before. I had to go through a dramatic mental readjustment: in all the times I had seen your edits and comments, on the basis of your user name I had always assumed you were female.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've just looked back at your user page, and seen your Moonriddengirl userbox. So, giving the impression of being female may not be so accidental as I thought. I admire her too, but I don't want to be her: I will leave you and her to fight over the privilege. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no, I'm not (self-)diagnosed with gender identity disorder: all my usual nicknames were occupied at the time, so I resorted to Special:Random to select a user name, thinking that it doesn't really matter, and thought it OK to name myself after an asteroid – should have paid closer attention to Greek mythology, I guess. :)
Regarding your actual question: In general, it depends: In clear cases, I do everything, including closing and archiving the case page. If I think more eyes would be helpful, I leave it open. Sometimes I think that it's better to separate the roles, and only report back on checkuser findings, and maybe leave a recommendation.
In this particular case, I didn't close it because there was still stuff to do when I left the {{confirmed}} template: I was still looking through contributions myself (and you beat me to reverting a series of edits that I was still looking at), still deleting pages, still tagging – I would have closed it myself once all loose ends were taken care of.
That's just my way of doing it though, I don't think there's really a rule. I asked a clerk when I started, who he told me it doesn't really matter that much to them how I leave things.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, which were interesting. While I'm here, I'll just say this. I don't off hand remember ever having communicated with you before, but I've often seen your work, and have a very high regard for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And I believe we last talked three weeks ago (but I only know this since this came up again a few days ago, my memory isn't any better either).
Cheers, Amalthea 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "I don't off hand remember" was deliberately non-committal, because I thought we had very likely been in contact, but I just didn't recall any specific occasion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to SPI, I prefer not to be the judge, jury and executioner. I see myself as the jury only; I tell the admins whether the parties are guilty or not. The admins sort the rest out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle sync

Any chance of a Twinkle and morebits sync?... — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. Amalthea 08:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of ...?

I'm not sure why the blocked editor posted on your user page, but he seems to be using Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of MosesBeacon as some sort of trophy. I don't know if it is possible, but removing that category, or at least removing all the entries in it might deter the editor from continuing the disruptive edits and adding to his "trophy". I only bring this up because it is my understanding that such a category is generally not needed (I remember reading that such sockpuppet categories were not needed, but I can't remember where), and in this case it seems like it would be better not to have it. However, my understanding may not be correct, so I wanted to leave you a message first and see. - SudoGhost 13:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The categories have their uses, but if they become a motivation and serve as a trophy case, I agree -- and they do here, per this. Amalthea 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Donna Martin

Hi again. User:Left4Deadseries FAN recently recreated this page again (which you yourself previously said is not encyclopedic material and should be redirected). I've restored the redirect. Left4Deadseries FAN has been doing this for months now -- defying WP:Notability, WP:No original research, and WP:COPYPASTE -- while ignoring comments from myself and another user.

Since this person doesn't seem willing to listen to me, could you possibly request that they stop? Or do I need to make a disruptive editing report? I'm sorry to bring this up again, but I believe that those of us who put the time and effort into creating articles the correct way shouldn't have to tolerate others creating non-notable original research. -- James26 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left them a message. Let's see whether it helps. Amalthea 14:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts. -- James26 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Hosokawa

Hi, are you the person who blocked the Hosokawa account ? I want to tell you something, that account was used by my brother since August 2010. After 1 day I created it, I gave the account to my brother who also love wikipedia. The reason I left that account because its hard for me to understand the articles editing.

In July 2011, my brother angrily give that account back to me, and I was shocked to see that my old account was blocked. I saw that account was blocked due to harrassment. My brother told me to replace his work as an editor in wikipedia, so I decided to create a new account in a computer in different location. Also, my brother pretending to be me by saying that he is a 14 years old teenager. In fact, I'm the person who is a 14 years old teenager. Last, please do not block or ban me, I had explain all the important reason to you.

The most important of all, I don't have any mean to abusively use more than one account, the reason I created this new account because my brother used my old account to harrass other users and was blocked.

Thanks for understanding DeshintaChandra (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Iluvrihanna24

See this discussion. Have you ever made the standard offer to one of his socks? That's the only reason I can think of this "six month" issue coming up.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not that I remember, but I tend to be liberal with that offer. I'll try and have a look. Amalthea 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading that discussion now, the "6 months" seems to be explained by that IP block now. Amalthea 08:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

China America

Hi, sorry for bothering you like this. The organizers of Miss Asia Pacific World Lawrence Choi said that Tingting Chen will still represent China America in Miss Asia Pacific World 2011. She didn't represent United States, but she will represent China America. I think it would be better if it use China America name. Also, people will not thing there are two US's representatives on Miss Asia Pacific World 2011. I don't changed the flag, I just changed the name. DeshintaChandra (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser

Can you please CU and confirm that these accounts are used by the very same person:

• Rahuljohnson4u (talk · contribs)
• Palakkappillilachayan (talk · contribs)
• Achayan.rj (talk · contribs)

As seen from their contribs, they are WP:SPAs working on the same topic, and same perspectives. The person's name could be Rahul Johnshon,(as evident from a/c #1). Here in a/c #2's page (), the same name is reflected. If you can note the surname in that link, the accounts have been recreating an article on the very same topic that was nominated for deletion, and subsequently found non-notable and merged (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palakkappillil). The "rj" of the a/c #3 could mean "Rahul Johnson"

Please make a CU and do the needful. TIA. Arjun 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid CheckUser can't help in this case since the data collected from two of the three users is  Stale. This would need to be decided based on contributions, probably best at WP:SPI. Amalthea 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

D'oh!

Presumably that's because you can't actually _access_ said statistics! =) –xeno 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You presume correctly. :) Amalthea 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You should do something about that! =) –xeno 19:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I really shouldn't. :p Amalthea 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah! –xeno 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the reply here.

Thanks for the attention

I can understand why at first glance an admin would come to the conclusion they did, but thanks for reviewing the matter further. A more indepth look at my edit history shows a very different story. Since I started editing the poker/gambling articles, I've been accused of being six or seven different people, and working for or against nine different online gambling companies, so I'm kind of used to being accused of stuff, but if after seven years I ever make a sockpuppet, I think I'd be more clever at it. :) In terms of the apparent edit war with DegenFarang, unfortunately as usual with him he starts something new accusing others, which obscures the real issue, and that has nothing to do with external links or any content really. It's just his desire to go to battle, fight everybody (now including you probably). I have killed a million brain cells and made a summary post about DegenFarang's tendatious editing and how this merits his permanent blocking. I hope you will take a look. I personally have been worn out by all this mean-spiritedness, and I'm very disappointed that admins did not already instantly ban someone who vandalized a BLP by saying a person majored in "thieving scumbaggery" in college. This sort of thing should not be allowed over and over again. Anyway, I hope you take a look at that, and thanks again for taking a look at the blocking. 2005 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW 2005 ignored your warning not to revert the articles in question without first reaching consensus and has rolled them back to their previous version yet again. I started an ANI requesting, at the very least, that 2005 be blocked from reverting my edits. That one simple change would prevent all of this from happening. Every single conflict 2005 and I have ever had has started with him reverting my edits. If they are really that bad another editor will revert them. DegenFarang (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also posted a great deal of evidence that the accounts in question were either socks or meatpuppets of 2005 at the ANI. Please review it. I am sure you have acted in good faith but your conclusion is wrong. Perhaps the IP's are different but everything else points to 2005 controlling the accounts. At least five other administrators agreed. "User:TheTakeover" first claimed he doesn't know the other sock and then admitted he lied about it and claimed they are merely close friends. I don't know how you can ignore evidence like that... DegenFarang (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated

First off, I would like to thank you for unblocking me and allowing me to edit the Misplaced Pages again. A few days ago, I thought I wouldn't be editing again regardless of whether my block was lifted because I was so frustrated. Now that I have had a couple of days, I am more interested than I have ever been. There are several reasons for this increased interest, but mainly I find the whole process to be mentally stimulating. It kind of reminds me of "Law" and almost makes me sorry that I never pursued the law degree that I was encouraged to pursue.

For now, I could use your help/opinion on two things:

1. Even though the technical evidence doesn't support that I am a sockpuppet of 2005, I am concerned that if I post my opinion or suggestion on a talk page where I side with him, my opinion will not only be disregarded, but I will be accused again and again of being a sockpuppet. So far, two editors sided with user 2005 and both have been accused. I want to weigh in on matters that I am knowledgeable (poker, board games, Hip-Hop, fitness) about, but don't want to face constant attacks on my character. So far this only seems to happen in the poker category and unfortunately for me (at least in regards to the Wikpedia), this is where I am most knowledgeable and the subject I am most passionate about. Your opinion on the best way to go about this would be helpful.

2. I would like to clean up my talk page. I actually want to delete the whole thing and "start fresh." When I deleted some things over this past week, I was told by user DegenFarang " if you keep this up they are going to block you from editing even this page." Am I allowed to clean up my own talk page? Can I delete old things where issues have been "resolved?"

Thanks for your help. TheTakeover (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages is supposed to work based on consensus. To quote, "consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted". If an argument is policy-based, it should not matter who makes it. It also shouldn't matter whether it is voiced by 10 people or just one.
   In reality it's not always so. Sometimes numbers matter explicitly, like at WP:RfA. But when we decide on content, we should aspire to that ideal. Arguments should never be disregarded based on who brings it forward.
   Every editor should contribute in the areas they feel most comfortable in, the areas they think they can help the most. Any active editor will get into disputes some time. Disputes should be handled calmly, by focusing on content, intent on improving the article based on policy, and while assuming good faith. And if a dispute cannot be resolved on the appropriate article or article talk page, there are plenty of processes, noticeboards, project talk pages to escalate them. In areas with active WikiProjects, I like to add a neutrally worded pointers at the respective project talk page, to invite further opinions of knowledgeable editors.
   Seemingly easy ways to resolve a dispute, be it persistent edit warring or recruiting like-minded editors through back-room channels, don't work in the long run. One needs to convince the broad majority of one's opinion, only that will show implicit or explicit consensus and will make other editors enforce that consensus.
2. See WP:BLANKING for all the details. In short, yes, you can blank your talk page.

Amalthea 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will be submitting my input on various talk pages shortly and hope that things go smoothly. For some reason, I don't think its likely as two seperate users who have disagreed with DegenFarang have been added, TODAY, to his list of sockpuppets of user 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2005/Archive. He has also accused you (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JamesBWatson) of being "familiar" with user 2005 and basically said that is why you lifted the block. In that same little blurb, he continued to call me a "sockpuppet" which is very frustrating to me. Regardless, here goes nothing. TheTakeover (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)