Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) →rm edits of banned user: remove another sock from list |
Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) →rm edits of banned user: note that "old edits" were stil made by the sockpuppets while blocked or banned |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
* {{user1|1=166.70.238.46}} |
* {{user1|1=166.70.238.46}} |
||
* <s>{{user1|1=69.2.248.210}}</s> only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet. |
* <s>{{user1|1=69.2.248.210}}</s> only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet. |
||
:Please note that when I refer to an "old edit of a banned user," that the edit being reverted was made a while ago, but still while the user was banned. In this particular case, the user was banned in Sept 2008, after being blocked since Aug 2007, and so any edits by sockpuppets after Aug 2007 are subject to policy. I would not go back and remove all of the edits which this banned user did before they were banned. [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg#top|talk]]) 02:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I've noticed that a few other editors have already taken care of some of the articles. [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg#top|talk]]) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
I've noticed that a few other editors have already taken care of some of the articles. [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg#top|talk]]) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:24, 3 July 2010
Dude, are you really using and ordering ATMELs or are you here just for propaganda ?
- Your question is irrelevant to the fact that the observations in the article about supply and willingness to sell small quantities badly violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; that is why they were removed.
- Still, I will respond to your question: yes, I have been using and ordering AVR's for about 10 years now. I used to have an STK200 and STK300, way back when you you needed a different kit for the Mega103 and Mega603, which were the only mega's at the time. I also remember when you could sell AT90S2313's for $20 on ebay because they were in very short supply and someone had designed it into a satellite card hacking device circa 2000/2001.
- More recently, I just finished designing a Mega324P into a piece of automated test equipment for a customer. Pfagerburg (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Af89003a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.253.113.194 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Still here
Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page, but it's better to use e-mail to contact me, or to alert me to something that must be discussed here or other places on-wiki. The e-mail address in my account is active; the "Email this user" link will work. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
rm edits of banned user
After doing two reverts, it dawned on me that maybe I should put the explanation here, instead of duplicating it all over the place. Official WP policy is that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." ([1], emphasis mine)
I am slowly removing the edits of various sockpuppets of a banned user. The latest sockpuppet investigation can be found here.
Linuxmdb (talk · contribs)already done before I got to itAmaTsisqa (talk · contribs)already done before I got to it71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs)done (just one article that hadn't been cleaned up yet by another editor)
This one was not part of the SPI, but it is obvious from the articles edited and the content inserted that it is the same sockmaster.
71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs)done
Other sockpuppets are listed in an earlier archived sockpuppet and checkuser requests, and will be dealt with eventually, including
Jvmphoto (talk · contribs)only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.- 166.70.238.43 (talk · contribs)
- 166.70.238.44 (talk · contribs)
166.70.238.45 (talk · contribs)done, not many edits from this IP, and some were already reverted- 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs)
69.2.248.210 (talk · contribs)only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.
- Please note that when I refer to an "old edit of a banned user," that the edit being reverted was made a while ago, but still while the user was banned. In this particular case, the user was banned in Sept 2008, after being blocked since Aug 2007, and so any edits by sockpuppets after Aug 2007 are subject to policy. I would not go back and remove all of the edits which this banned user did before they were banned. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that a few other editors have already taken care of some of the articles. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at user Gbelknap while you're at it. Hasn't edited since 2008, but a fairly obvious sock when you dig into the contribs. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that account is a sockpuppet.
- Searching for the account name and the name of the company in the account's edit history yields a real-world identity which makes perfect sense given the editing pattern - two articles about a technology marketed by his employer, and one article created about said employer.
- Checkuser would be worthless, because the edits are too old for WP to still have the IP addresses. Though I would bet dollars to donuts the edits came from that company's IP address(es).
- The account has behaved itself remarkably well. After creating a page for his employer, he responded properly to the AfD, and has not edited on any other subjects since then. His mission accomplished, he retired from editing.
- Approximately one month after Gbelknap's edits, a certain well-known IP address was all over the company's article, posting claims about litigation in a series of edits. Gbelknap didn't even go back to edit out these claims (i.e. he avoided edit-warring).
- I'm going to pass on Gbelknap; I believe that the account was not controlled by the sockmaster who is at issue here. I'm quite willing to be proven wrong, if someone believes otherwise and can support their argument. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)