Olsen24
I've blocked this editor twice for edit warring and fully support the indef but was surprised at your no article talk page posts ever assertion. Maybe you were looking at another namespace? [1] --NeilN talk to me 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oops. I've apologized for my mistake on the editor's talk but still retain confidence in the block. Thanks for your note, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Proof Olsen24 is lying: [2] SportsFan007 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
- I saw that edit but believe that there is nothing more to do, for now. The user's block is in effect for another three months, and we'll see if everything is OK when he returns to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Proof Olsen24 is lying: [2] SportsFan007 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007
- Template:Avianca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Edit warring complaint
- Ju98 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Before threating Wikipedia content contributors, firstly you should check if the other people's reviews are valid or not by contrasting other trustful information sources (i.e. relationship of Avianca brand with Nicaragua and Mexico). An almost perfect lack of knowledge from your side (using the same kind of friendly expression you used towards me). Ju98_5 (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- This must be a response to the warning I left you per a complaint at WP:AN3. Even if you have good knowledge about Avianca, this doesn't give you license to keep reverting without ever discussing or using an edit summary. You did not take the opportunity to respond at AN3. As an administrator, I'm not expected to know about Avianca, only to check whether people are going through the proper steps when they disagree. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Web_SourceContent
- Web SourceContent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Something doesn't smell right here. Out of the blue they revert me on a page they have never been to. I suspect they might be looking at some latest edit list but... something's not right here. This is a user who has edited a handful of times outside of this last month, suddenly editing in a way that seems to imply they know way more than they should rightfully know, with a signature that doesn't match their user name. I saw you tried to engage with them on their talk page. Now they've started working in their sandbox in... another weird way. I'd keep an eye on them. I'll report back if I see anything unusual. --Tarage (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is likely to be a returning editor. No problems yet. What's more of a concern if somebody pretends to be a new user and they are not. Their English is not yet good enough for them to work in contentious areas, so I hope they pursue a quiet career. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Airports AN
Ping [3] 219.76.18.76 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Sockmaster JJ 25
He's still at it.[4] The range block you conducted some time ago was pretty effective. Perhaps worth doing again? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the ANI from early June, that rangeblock was of Special:Contributions/204.40.128.0/17. But now you are discussing a single IP at Special:Contributions/70.54.122.138. I don't recall User:JJ 25 being in this range. Do you have any links? EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Should've been more clear, my bad. The IP I linked is part of another IP range, but operated by the same sockmaster. He switched to it (first edit, 10 June 2018) after you conducted the range block on 204.40.128.0/17 a few days earlier. Same geo-location,[5]-[6]) same edits, sole concern is reinstating JJ 25's/204.40.128.0/17's edits (i.e. textbook WP:DUCK).[7]-[8]-[9]-[10]. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've blocked Special:Contributions/70.54.122.138 for one month. Let me know if the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will do. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've blocked Special:Contributions/70.54.122.138 for one month. Let me know if the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Should've been more clear, my bad. The IP I linked is part of another IP range, but operated by the same sockmaster. He switched to it (first edit, 10 June 2018) after you conducted the range block on 204.40.128.0/17 a few days earlier. Same geo-location,[5]-[6]) same edits, sole concern is reinstating JJ 25's/204.40.128.0/17's edits (i.e. textbook WP:DUCK).[7]-[8]-[9]-[10]. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a puppet
Hi Ed, I recently sought WP:3O and looks like a sock has been created to handle it, see Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion#Weirdly_named_Puppet_handling_3O_requests. I am not sure how to proceed. I have responded to sock on the article talk and reverted my 3O request. appreciate your kind advice on best course of action. --DBigXray 15:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have left a note for the editor. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any explanation for why you decided to come to a particular administrator instead of using official avenues? --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Noting. Another evidence of this editor indulging in my WP:WIKIHOUNDING --DBigXray 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hate to burst your bubble, but the 3O is not a sock. You're just wrong. I do not need a sock to prove that. I'm free to question why you couldn't accuse our 3O of being a biased party in a more public forum. My guess? You were afraid of being wrong, and maybe you feel like you've built up some kind of rapport with this administrator (he seems like a nice enough guy.)
- It looks a lot like you're just shopping around. Shopping around for third opinions. Shopping around for administrators. And you're dodging any suggestions (like RfC) that would mean you can no longer game the system. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Did somebody mention an RfC? If there is one, please link to it. I hope all parties are aware that the articles in question are under WP:ARBIPA. If people seem unable or unwilling to follow the steps of dispute resolution, topic bans are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, WP:RFCBEFORE says 2 editors can go for 3O ebfore RFC. If so, how is asking for a 3O before RFC not following the steps ? --DBigXray 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- As it says on the WP:3O page, that is a 'less formal' process and, in my opinion, it may not always be suitable. For something like the Khalistan movement that failed at WP:DRN you should be going to WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- OK, As I said before, this was my first RFC, So I was following the steps of whatever WP:RFC page suggested. Never in my dreams had I wondered asking for 3O would be attracting Topic bans.
- I have moved the RFC to the talk page now after some quick discussion with EH on the subpage. Please let me know if it needs more work or anything.--DBigXray 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- The RfC at Talk:Khalistan movement#RFC on Resurgence of the Khalistan Movement is off to a good start but it's so verbose you may have trouble getting participants. (People won't have the patience if they can't figure out what you're asking in less than an hour's work). I'd suggest making two different versions of the lead (one with 'resurgence' and one without) and asking people to vote between them. You could reduce the WP:TLDR problem by putting each reference list in a collapse box, with 'hat'. The RfC doesn't have to settle everything, you could have a subsequent one with other questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- As it says on the WP:3O page, that is a 'less formal' process and, in my opinion, it may not always be suitable. For something like the Khalistan movement that failed at WP:DRN you should be going to WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, WP:RFCBEFORE says 2 editors can go for 3O ebfore RFC. If so, how is asking for a 3O before RFC not following the steps ? --DBigXray 16:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Did somebody mention an RfC? If there is one, please link to it. I hope all parties are aware that the articles in question are under WP:ARBIPA. If people seem unable or unwilling to follow the steps of dispute resolution, topic bans are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Noting. Another evidence of this editor indulging in my WP:WIKIHOUNDING --DBigXray 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any explanation for why you decided to come to a particular administrator instead of using official avenues? --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I do agree that it is Too long, On the draft I had commented that lets focus on the resurgence first and rest later on. I have presented the 2 versions already one with resurgence and other without. I also agree with hatting the reference lists. User:Elephanthunter Do you agree on collapsing ref list and decluttering the Question with unnecessary comments on Me ? --DBigXray 20:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it's too long. Hatting ref lists is cool. If you are alright with removing (or hatting) all content between your first signature and the header for "Versions", I agree with that. You allowed me to update the headers, and I feel they are sufficient. I understand the usefulness of agreed-upon facts to people visiting the RfC, but the possibility of getting into some kind of meta-disagreement about what we agree on in our disagreement just makes my head hurt. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks ED and EH. Hatting did improve the situation a lot. Now regardign the "too long" problem. As Ed suggested and I also mentioned in the draft RFC page, lets first only decide on the resurgence/active part of the dispute. rest disputes can follow later on. The RFC Question still only asks about resurgence/active but the lead versions presented by both parties contain extra parts. Does EH agree on editing our own versions to a bare miniumum so as to only reflect the question of resurgence/activity ? ( we can edit and agree on the draft versions of the lead at Talk:Khalistan movement/Rfc --DBigXray 08:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agreed to remove "all content between your first signature and the header for 'Versions'" (diff) you instead just removed the comments (diff). Maybe there was a misunderstanding. To be completely clear, I don't like that section. I don't want to negotiate a meta list of agreed-upon facts for the RfC. Also, it looks like after we both agreed to a particular header (diff) you changed the headers again (diff). I'm not sure if you should continue editing the RfC format. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- hi EH regarding this The text and the sources are Perfectly neutral and as per the source, (not sure what POV you are talking about here) and been added as a summary/Background to the Question. You never raised such issues when I sought your omments on the draft Rfc at Talk:Khalistan movement/Rfc. Let me know clearly what your objections are. I would like that text back in the Question and this edit self reverted.--DBigXray 16:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reading back, I realize my comment on the RfC draft could have been more clear (diff) At that point you had a section labeled "To summarize what we have established and agreed as per multiple source." I said "The section with the summary would be rather difficult to maintain, since we'd likely disagree on interpretation. You should be allowed to bold things, but clearly they're not things I would bold. It might be better to let our arguments sit separately." --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see, thanks for your reply. I stand by my comment above regarding the need for a background. No reason given by you for objecting to the text or source. So I will move it to my version accordingly. --DBigXray 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your facts are arguments. They are neither brief, neutral, nor signed. Your arguments should stay in the arguments section, and retain clear attribution to you. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ed, let me know your opinion of me including a context/ background as of now on Rfc. I feel it is useful and should remain. The text is short, factual and as per the sources to give a context to the new users coming to the Rfc--DBigXray 18:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, EdJohnston probably has more experience with RfCs, and I agree to let him arbitrate this disagreement if he's interested. A brief neutral statement is prescribed RfC policy, and any text beyond that is argument. The facts DBigXray provided are misleading and unsigned. It looks like DBigXray and myself are starting to edit war over this expanded unsigned RfC description. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TurboCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan/Archive
Hello there,
Would it be possible for you take a look at this new account?
Firstly he attempted to impersonate an editor (dormant for 10 years) on his userpage, who apparently created the 1971 Bangladesh genocide article. ([11])
After an editor asked him to declare the identity on the userpage of the main account as another editor fell for the claim of this new account, he comes back after 9 days and makes up a new story.
The interaction utility tool shows this account overlaps impressively with Towns Hill and matches the huge lengths of content addition.
--RaviC (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I added some userlinks to the top of this report. It looks to me that the registered socks of Faizan are all stale so any sockpuppet case would have to be based on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)