Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
→Iantresman: Grrr! |
||
Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
::Among those suspected sockpuppets of Iantresman is Applecola. If there is no need for my "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Iantresman" tag, then why is he blocked indefinitely as an Iantresman sockpuppet? Seems inconsistent. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
::Among those suspected sockpuppets of Iantresman is Applecola. If there is no need for my "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Iantresman" tag, then why is he blocked indefinitely as an Iantresman sockpuppet? Seems inconsistent. [[User:Art LaPella|Art LaPella]] ([[User talk:Art LaPella|talk]]) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Grrr. This is why I dislike private Checkuser requests. Things should be in the open so we can link to them. That way the admin who wanders into a situation six months later can actually figure out what happened! [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 03:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:58, 19 April 2008
Thanks for standing up for me
[1] I know it can be hard, seeing as how I'm so unpopular. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- If this is not Iantresman socking, I would support unblocking him. Your tormentor could be another troll using this incident as cover. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right. There is an entire forum of Ian Tresman allies angry at my activity at Wikipedia: [2]. Soupdragon, it turns out, is one of the names of one of the members there other than Iantresman. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana's sock case
Jehochman, I don't quite agree with your assessment of this sockpuppet case. I find that the creation date of the users match too well with Dana creating an account to edit his own article and then creating new accounts whenever the someone asks if he is Dana. Notice how the users just stop editing when they are being asked if they are Dana, and never defend themselves, and then keep editing with the same arguments.
I know that you are a way more experienced editor than me, and that you are experienced with sock cases, but I find this case to be hurried too much. Is there some procedure to get a checkuser done by asking to other admin or to get the case reviewed by a different admin? I don't want to "admin-shop", but I don't really feel confortable with your handling of the case, and I would like another admin with checkuser privileges to look at it and confirm that it's necessary to make a checkuser.
It just looks to me like an evident case, even if I couldn't find any actual smoking gun to point it. There is also more circumstancial evidence, like Dana and those users having all of them two spaces after every end of sentence on all comments, this being something that only happens to a percentage of users of wikipedia, and that I forgot to include on the case.
I thought of sending you a private email, but since you always say that you want to talk things on the open, I'm posting here. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- First, much of the complaint was stale. We don't block for old offenses. The fresh material was not convincing at all. Feel free to request checkuser if you can provide the required evidence. Jehochman Talk 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I see your point. You are right in that the ofenses are old. Well, if Dana really used those accounts, I hope that he sees the case and decides to never do it again, in which case the intended purpose (avoiding sockpuppetry) has been fulfilled. A block now for those old actions would have been a punitive action, I should have remembered that, sorry for that. You closed the case very correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to see that Enric learned something here. I wanted to alert you that FlagTheError is NOT me, and this user emailed me to say s/he got blocked indefinitely by admin East718. I sent him an email to alert him of his error and to avoid biting the newbies, and yet, this user is still blocked...and is now very discouraged. DanaUllmanTalk 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, Are you interested in popping by for a chat with the NTWW? All you need is a working headset, a glass of water (trust me, all the talking gets tiring :) and skype on your computer (it's free). We'd love to have a knowledgeable chap such as yourself on ;) Regards, Anthøny 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. What's the schedule? Jehochman Talk 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great stuff! Well, we're on Skype just now, although it's just an informal chat, rather than a formal episode. You're welcome to add me (I'm agkwiki) and I'll put you through to the conference call, but otherwise, we're looking at getting together next Friday. We'd love to have you just now, though ;) Anthøny 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I wouldnt mind talking to Jehochman myself although I am not on Skype right now. I was earlier however.--Filll (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's because you abandoned us :) *stares* Anthøny 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Fairly painless
This was fairly painless! :-) BTW, do you know if the arbitrators watch the talk page. I posted this, but I can't remember whether talk pages and main pages are mixed up together in watchlists or whether they show up separately. I was thinking of asking for advice somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- When watching a page, the talk page is also watched, and they appear as separate entries. Surely they will see your comment. My comment will be seen, but remains unseen. *:o) Jehochman Talk 13:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Are you in a contrary mood today? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all! I am feeling rather jovial, after a trip to Dunkin Donuts and a large coffee. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- We have Dunkin Donuts here, but I guess you don't have Tesco yet? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Two birds with one stone
Hi, Jehochman. I bring something related to violation on our user naming policy and possible SSP. You're very strict to inappropriate wording or comment by editors, so I think you can clear this up. A new user named Chibalnom (talk · contribs) nominates Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies
At first the article looks quite mess without reliable citations, but I know the school is a notable school for gifted students in South Korea. However, his name concerns me more that the article, because it refers to "son of bitch" in Korean and his user page also is written with "Chibal!". He seems to be very knowledgeable of all the procedure for AFD on contrary to his registered date. Not to mention, the name is a blatant violation on the user name policy but I think he is likely a sock of this non-Korean editor.[4] Since the romanization is not following the Revised Romanization, generally used method to transcribe Korean language into English here, I guess he pretends to be Korean. In addition, his eagerness toward Korean academic institutions and DAB pages, the two people could be the same person. Please look into this case, Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like the nuanced meaning is more like "Fuck you, bitch", which qualifies as an invalid username. The fact that they are editing Korean articles creates a presumption that this is not an innocent happenstance. I will do something. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. :) --Appletrees (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I saw you recently contributed to Sottolacqua's request for editor assistance. I've asked Jnelson09 to show the edit he considers vandalism, and I actually disagree with him and think that the section removed by Sottolacqua was not encyclopaedic. I'd be interested in hearing your views on this. The discussion on Jnelson09's talk page contains the bulk of the details and the edit in question is here: [5]. Many thanks, Howie ☎ 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation tool?
I see you have something about a new citation tool on your userpage. How does it work, does it add a new tab to the top of wiki pages like Twinkle, with a dropdown selection of citation templates or something? Cirt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Its a Firefox add-on. When viewing a web page the you'd like to cite, right click on the page, select WPCITE, and a little window opens with the cite code. Then copy and paste into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- ^ "User talk:Jehochman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
Ha! That is really neat, thank you so much for developing this! So it works with the template {{cite web}} primarily? Cirt (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We could program additional options, but it is easy enough to tweak the output by hand if you would like a different cite template, or to add other fields. Jehochman Talk 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Citation tool for Wikinews?
Is there a way that a similar Citation tool could be developed like this for Wikinews? Over there the primary source template used is {{source|url=|title=|author=|pub=|date=}} - for example as used at n:3000 homeless after fire breaks out in Chad refugee camp. Only if you have a chance - I know this would really be useful at Wikinews because we rely quite heavily on online sources, and a lot of people would really appreciate it - just that we use a different form of source-template. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Transparency: ArbCom and Oversight Process
Not knowing to whom I should pose this administrative question, I thought that I would turn to you. I notice that User:PHG was blocked for one week with the "strong encouragement" that he find a mentor. I don't disagree with the suggestion (it will likely do the user some good), but I notice that "encouragement" is not exactly the same as directly ordering a user to do something.
For my own edification, what should happen if the user (or any user) simply ignored the Arbcom's "encouragement" at the end of this one-week block and proceeded to edit as if nothing had happened (a reasonable assumption based on the user's history)? In terms of administrative process, what would happen? J Readings (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- If they managed to self-correct past problems, they could happily continue editing. However, if they were to repeat past mistakes, which seems likely since PHG denies having made any mistakes, the result may be a series of rapidly escalating blocks. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. J Readings (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted article Megalithic yard restored
User:Little sawyer has restored the article Megalithic yard. I think you have some information about his history and posts under a different name.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no feelings about this article. If there is some sort of abusive sock puppetry, please file a report. Regards, Jehochman Talk 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's been deleted now anyway.Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet report
Hi. I have added some comments to a recent sockpuppet report on Rafaelsfingers.
I note from your checkuser report that you did not ask for a check against Rafaelsfingers and supergreenred - maybe you should put those together with the IPs, as it may be that Sky really is in Taiwan - in which case there may still be a sockpuppetmaster in San Fransisco, where I think both Rafael and Supergreen are editing from.
As for Aho Aho, if you feel he is a sockpuppet then sky may warrant a further remedy, as the AA account has continued to edit even after Sky was originally blocked for sockpuppeting. John Smith's (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. This report is a tangled mess, but I will pull it apart one thread at a time. Jehochman Talk 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to be more helpful in how I've structured my comments. John Smith's (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, do you look into edit-warring? Only if you have the time there's a 3RR report on supergreenred for reverting four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. I believe that is grounds for a block. See here. John Smith's (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Controlled demo lead
Hi Jehochman, sorry about that unnecessary edit of your revert. I thought I was editing the version you had just reverted. I know it has been discussed before, but it would be good if you and others briefly state your opinon (in favour of A) here so that the consensus can be easily identified for next time. While I lean to B, I don't mind A. If consensus is for A, I'll take it upon myself to point B-ers in the direction of the poll. Best--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Bad call
Per the evidence on this page, it is an implausible coincidence for these three accounts, supporting each other and the same idiosyncratic point of view, to be located in such a narrow geographic region while editing the same narrow set of articles. If hat's the crucial point leading to an indefblock of Giovanni33, I must say that leaving out the crucial fact that the "idiosyncratic POV" is US=massive terrorist ringleader, the "narrow set of articles"=those articles which imply the US is a massive terrorist ringleader and the "narrow geographical area is San Francisco!! does strengthen your argument a bit. Put it in, and your argument fails, I'm afraid. Not that I am particularly upset if Giovanni has gone, but if you think that every IP/ account in future (or in the past!) editing with that POV from Northern California is a sockpuppet of G33, we are going to see a hell of a lot of false positives. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Please point out a few of these false positives. I spent many hours scouring the data. Show me anything to indicate that these accounts are in any way distinguishable from one another. Jehochman Talk 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're the blocker, you do that, why don't you?
- I merely read your rationale and pointed out one enormous bloody hole in it. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I looked for false positives or any feature that would distinguish these accounts, and there was none to be found. The unpleasant situation is that we had a user with a history of exactly this sort of problem with a set of circumstances, reported by users in good standing, that exactly matched sock puppetry. I had to make a difficult judgment call per all the available information, and the conclusion was a finding of sock puppetry. I have invited checkusers, and others, to review the report. Everything is available for inspection and comment. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Everything except any actual evidence. As I point out again, you haven't demonstrated anything except that we have a bunch of accounts from San Francisco who edit a particular set of articles with a POV that is hardly unusual or rare in that geographical area. I hope you realise that some similarities in editing should ideally be presented. If you spent a few hours examining this already, it shouldn't be too much extra work. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- There's no rush, of course; if you feel unwilling to plod through it again I'll just post it at AN and see if anyone is willing to review it. The SPA blocks are no problem, but the long-term account needed more rationale than was provided. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Everything except any actual evidence. As I point out again, you haven't demonstrated anything except that we have a bunch of accounts from San Francisco who edit a particular set of articles with a POV that is hardly unusual or rare in that geographical area. I hope you realise that some similarities in editing should ideally be presented. If you spent a few hours examining this already, it shouldn't be too much extra work. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I looked for false positives or any feature that would distinguish these accounts, and there was none to be found. The unpleasant situation is that we had a user with a history of exactly this sort of problem with a set of circumstances, reported by users in good standing, that exactly matched sock puppetry. I had to make a difficult judgment call per all the available information, and the conclusion was a finding of sock puppetry. I have invited checkusers, and others, to review the report. Everything is available for inspection and comment. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Three administrators have endorsed the block. You are the lone opposition. See below, as well as the SSP report talk page and the unblock denial on the user's talk page. Jehochman Talk 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately what I've seen isn't helpful. WMC talks about the SPA block. The unblock request on the user's talkpage is extremely disturbing; there's no examination of your rationale at all, only an assumption its correct. That's not good procedure. And the SSP talkpage... well, I've asked Krimpet to weigh in again. The point remains, this block has been made on the assumption that nobody else in Northern California would edit like this account on this subject, and that's a completely unjustifiable assumption. If there's something else that you saw and that I'm not seeing, please do tell me. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As much as I like Giovanni, I would agree that he is using sockpuppets. For example, with only about 20 edits to his name, Supergreenred removes John Smiths comments from his talk page here, something which Giovanni habitually does. In the next edit John Smith notes the obvious: [6]. John Smith was Gio's opponent in the arbcom case and they have a long history. Another possibility: Gio's opponents are setting him up by creating socks that look like him. Entirely possible, and very easy to do, so there is some ambiguity. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good call on the unblock Jehochman - that was very fair minded of you. I really doubt those were socks of Giovanni given the style of writing - and what would have been a very sloppy method of socking by a former sockpuppeter. Perhaps other admins will review the situation, but I think the evidence was too weak for an indef block (though as I said on AN/I it's easy to see why you would have come to a different conclusion and decided on the block).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. The report was complex and there were actually quite a few socks involved. It seems that Giovanni33 may have been an innocent bystander who got caught in the dragnet because of his history. Jehochman Talk 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- That may have been the case; you're right, the original report was very complex. Either way, I think eyes are on G33 now. Thank you for reconsidering. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at additional evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rafaelsfingers#Additional_evidence Ultramarine (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- That may have been the case; you're right, the original report was very complex. Either way, I think eyes are on G33 now. Thank you for reconsidering. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. The report was complex and there were actually quite a few socks involved. It seems that Giovanni33 may have been an innocent bystander who got caught in the dragnet because of his history. Jehochman Talk 03:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Your closure of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy_(2nd)
I am sorry, but you closed the SSP recommending WP:DE, which I am not debating. But if the community follows your recommendation it leads to ANI, which you yourself called "A place that fuels drama". Is it no advisable that parties conserned should pursue their conserns at WP:RFC/U. Igor Berger (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call
Re [7] and the rest: thanks. It will help a lot; indeed it already has William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Bearian (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This Barnstar is given for quick and valiant action against a vandal who has harassed many a fine editor. Kudos! Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC) |
Wooo! I don't have on of these yet. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good call. I issued him a final warning, but he didn't seem to heed it. Fully support your block, and endorse the above barnstar. If you have a "gallery" of those things, add another one from me ;) (Yes, I'm serious). Btw, don't forget the NotTheWikipediaWeekly tomorrow evening! Anthøny 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Issues raised by Ultramarine
Ultramarine makes some interesting points on Rafael's talk page. Wanted to let you know in case you missed them. John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Rafaelsfingers
If he is to be considered for unblocking, surely he needs to admit to his sockpuppetry and disclose all accounts/IPs/etc that he has been using. Though, as I mention above, Ultramarine feels that there is new evidence that points to Giovanni being the puppeteer, rather than Rafael (which would make Rafael a sock). John Smith's (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- And if we unblock them and they really are socking, we will be able to watch them and gather evidence to make an indefinite block stick. Unblocking is a win-win situation. I am probably going to unblock unless they give me a reason not to. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- What if the puppetmaster decides to leave Rafael as a sleeper to start causing trouble when everyone's forgetten about this? At the very least you should insist on disclosure - otherwise it's encouraging people to abuse sockpuppets because they'll assume they won't be punished (much) for it. John Smith's (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- So are you going to insist on disclosure? I think it's only fair. Also there's the outstanding point on Ultramarine's comments on Giovanni. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lets assume good faith and focus on article content instead of negative speculations of editors, who are not being disruptive but cooperative and helpful. WP is not a place to fight battles against editors and try to get opponents blocked, or banned. Lets all give these editors a full assumption of good faith and let their actions be their judge, not their ideological opponents. Jehochman has shown integrity and qualities of impartiality with regard to his good faith blocks and unblocks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- So are you going to insist on disclosure? I think it's only fair. Also there's the outstanding point on Ultramarine's comments on Giovanni. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Iantresman
I'd like to ask your advice, because I think you're familiar with procedures related to sockpuppets. I'm inclined to remove a suspected sockpuppet template from User:Iantresman's userpage. The suspected sockpuppet reports (first , second) didn't find conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. The template was placed on the user page on April 10, around the time of filing the second suspected sockpuppet report, by ScienceApologist. I proposed on Iantresman's talk page removing the sockpuppet template and no one has objected. Would I be violating any policy or usual procedure if I were to delete the template? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, the tag should stay. One of the suspected socks was IDed by checkuser previously. I have removed a few of the suspects that have not been supported by evidence. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Among those suspected sockpuppets of Iantresman is Applecola. If there is no need for my "An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Iantresman" tag, then why is he blocked indefinitely as an Iantresman sockpuppet? Seems inconsistent. Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)