User talk:ClaireWalzer

Welcome!

Hello, ClaireWalzer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tutorial to help get you oriented editing Wikipedia)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Jim1138 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compositio Mathematica

That is the name of the publication. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you had changed it back to Compositio Math here Best Jim1138 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That IP

Much of this seems more on the side of being abrasive and not an attack. Materials Scientist just ignored this one, he is rather thick-skinned, but will come down hard on attackers. Unfortunately, being abrasive or sexist is not a crime on Wikipedia. I find this unfortunate as it drive many excellent editors away. Some of the abrasive editors are considered to be productive and of "value". If many leave because of them, they are not someone who I would value. If the IP makes blatant attacks, then report on wp:ani. My recommendation: organize. See Gender bias on Wikipedia and meta:Gender gap. Hope I was of help here. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against using "vandalism" unless it is overt. Possibly accidental errors such as misspelling mathematica probably should not be referred to as vandalism. Its use tends to infuriate many. I would suggest reading WP:AGF and WP:VANDALISM. I would recommend fixing the spelling instead of reverting. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice board

FYI: WP:ANI#66.74.176.59

That went a bit further than I expected. Jim1138 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to state that I stole your diffs off my talk page and added them to the ANI. ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of advice: you don't need to respond to 66./William's rants unless you want to. He's proven plenty he does not belong here, and we know you didn't do anything wrong. Find an article that interests you, have fun, and please don't let this fiasco color how you see the site.

As for the possible third sock, I enjoy chewing on them. What's the IP address? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I'm finding everyone very friendly, and trying to avoid the temptation of feeding trolls! This user is the user who strikes me as similar - a few months behind a geographical IP where times online don't seem entirely likely. ClaireWalzer (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I usually do (and did just now) is:

check the IP's locations: Los Angeles and New York. Different locations doesn't automatically a fail (what with proxies and IP spoofing), it just seals the deal if everything else checks out.
check edit histories: 68./NY mostly sticks to US political figures, while 66./William edits articles on Latinos and math.
compare behavior and writer voices:

-68./NY is pretty much silent, a trait 66./William desperately needs to learn.

-68./NY doesn't use edit summaries, while 66./William usually uses "ce" (copy edit)

-68./NY mostly does stuff like apply the same template to a bunch of relevant articles and code tables better than I do >_> 66./William... well, I can't tell what he was trying to accomplish in this edit (the blue sections on the right are added spaces), but he seems to prefer overhauling text rather than code.

Sorry, but I have to conclude 68./NY is just a wayward little WikiGnome (they edit both democrats and republicans, don't edit between 11PM and 7AM, but did edit during last Christmas eve and day, so I'm guessing retiree or student). It'd be nice if 68./NY would communicate more, but at least they're not insulting people.

If I'd found enough evidence, I'd compile a list of WP:DIFFs (like in the behavior comparison, but more links) and head over to WP:SPI. There's no need to do that for 66.. and William whatsit just yet, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for your message. You've given me a lot to think about, and I've done a lot of reading since your explanation.

I wasn't going to reply, as I don't want to fall foul of WP:WITCHHUNT, but as William claims to have left while the request for a block has been archived unresolved [1] and 68 is on a second block [2], I'll try to explain why I think that IP user 68.194.85.167 appears to be an alternate IP used by William Sommer, formerly 66.74.176.59, without being accused of harrassment, I hope.

You are of course correct about the IP's locations. As CheckUser is of little help with IP users I thought that a user with two proxies might find IP logins simpler than keeping passwords straight. Edit histories are different, but there are some similarities on occasion, such as these edits a week after your reply:William NY IP

Their behavior is certainly different as you correctly note. William's rants and 68's silence (even after being blocked) are both odd but not possible to compare. Both have been criticized for overzealous, over-hasty editing and a lack of edit summaries and have been blocked briefly for disruptive editing, but that's true of many users. I don't know if they have ever intersected at a page. But what convinced me that they are both controlled by one user is WP:CHRONOSOCK. Please forgive my newbie diffs - I've kept them to a few pairs as there are enough walls of text about already and I can't display them side-by-side!

I've compared three Saturday night sessions from December (so at weekly intervals), starting with the 13th to the 14th. William's LA IP NY IP

Saturday December 20th to Sunday December 21st William's LA IP NY IP

Saturday December 27th to Sunday December 28th William's LA IP NY IP

And some Thursday and Friday nights in February

Thursday February 5th to Friday February 6th William's LA IP NY IP

Friday February 13th to Saturday February 14th William's LA IP NY IP

Thursday February 19th to Friday February 20th William's LA IP NY IP

Friday February 20th to Saturday February 21st William's LA IP NY IP

There are some similarities, but there was nothing conclusive until four days after your post. Then these edits appeared. They seem too similar to be independent: William NY IP

These last two diffs convinced me that these accounts are linked. I'm sure it's an alternate IP, but WP:MOTIVE remains a mystery to me. If either or both return, maybe more evidence will emerge. ClaireWalzer (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That IP

Maybe more embarrass that it did not pan out.William Sommer (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point? Or are you just here to WP:HARASS Claire? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You characterize everything in a manner to thwart any comment contrary to your effort and have been found out. Do you honestly think that people will not find out these expected but not anticipated maneuvers?William Sommer (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize this is a public talk page, right? You seem to be imagining this is some backroom deal. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this is public. And when you have communication between people directing an effort it is considered by the US Government wheeling and dealing. You really should consult one of the law industry people that are at least administrators or just plain contributors within WP about the issue especially when it comes to group directed discrimination. See, when you work in the appropriate industries you have access to knowledge and advice.William Sommer (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeling and dealing consists of backroom deals for a profit. This is collaboration, something you've clearly never learned how to do. Also, your feeble attempt to bring in what you imagine to be US law is pathetic WP:Wikilawyering, another sign of bad-faith editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For dealing with far more than any new editor should have had to deal with and managing to maintain a positive approach while doing so. Amortias (T)(C) 11:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ClaireWalzer (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I hope you don't receive any legal threats for this. ClaireWalzer (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it'd be really useful if he made a legal threat. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like legal threats for the very reason Ian.Thomson mentioned.Amortias (T)(C) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get back to some real work. Thanks for stepping up and hanging in there! 76.167.111.123 (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest

WP:ANI#Indef block Jim1138 (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I hope this resolves well for all concerned. ClaireWalzer (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298

I can categorically guarantee that I am not a sockpuppet or sockpuppeter of any accounts (other than the 2 blocked accounts that I was blocked for as a new user). Saying that, I do not begrudge you for adding me to that investigation, as I believe that it was done in good faith, and some of my interactions with that user could have been seen as suspicious, although I've given a perfectly true and legitimate justification at the investigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My apologies, I accept that I was very hasty, and that you are not in any way linked to this user. I regret posting the SPI addition - had I looked more closely at your commenting style, I would have seen that it was very different to the passive-aggressive bullying and repeated claims of victim status which are the identifying traits of the idiot behind the many socks discovered so far. ClaireWalzer (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi not your fault, on the surface there could have been a case. We all make mistakes with good intentions, I'm sure I've wrongly reported people to SPI before. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quinto Simmaco - membership of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors

Hi Symmachus, I've undone your edit to your userpage here as you have (possibly inadvertently) added yourself to the Category:Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors. This category "indicates editors who have been contributing to the project for a decade or more". To quote the project page: Membership, as the name suggests, is simply conditional upon having been an editor for at least ten years. As you have been editing Wikipedia since 28 February 2015 you are, as yet, ineligible to nominate yourself for membership. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask here.

It might have been better if you had tried reaching out to me before doing so. I edited under the previous account Kaelus, which (if I'm not mistaken), I registered nearly twelve years ago. And before that, I edited anonymously (albeit irregularly)- I've been a Wikipedian almost since the very inception of the project. This account was created because I could no longer access my prior one (after forgetting my password), due to having never linked an e-mail address to it. It wasn't the norm to do so when I signed up. I'd appreciate it if you would revert yourself. I'd like to think I've "earned my stripes", as it were.

Being proactive is nice, but honestly, I'm not sure why a user who (presumably) is only four months old, and has less than 100 edits themselves, would be making such revisions to a group like that without attempting to contact the user first. It's always better to assume such additions were made intentionally, and get in touch with someone before removing them from a Wikiproject list, even one that has certain criteria.- I daresay it makes the person being removed look incompetent, or not cognizant of what they were doing. I know it was done in good faith and all, so no worries. But as I said, I'd appreciate you reverting yourself, rather than me doing it for you. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClaireWalzer; welcome to Wikipedia, and it is appreciated that you are trying to help with maintenance as a new user with less than 100 edits. However, (building on what Symmachus said) please be very careful; when making allegations, it is a good idea to be almost certain and carry lots of evidence; when taking controversial action, please be careful to at least discuss with all parties involved, and hopefully reach a consensus, before taking the action. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

L235 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]