Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/05

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SPI on Rodolfootoya12

[edit]

Hey, thanks for merging my two reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rodolfootoya12/Archive. The SPI report system intimidates me and I've made mistakes in the past. Appreciate it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Frontier

[edit]

You appear to have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara Frontier erroneously. Notability is not the only criterion for deletion, as should have been obvious from my nomination statement, where I clearly stated the topic is notable. My argument was not based on notability, but you said: "Notability is the key to inclusion, not anything else". I don't believe that statement is supportable given precedent. Powers T 13:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have things like copyvio, blatant advertisement, etc. But otherwise, having a precise definition just isn't a criteria for inclusion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A block

[edit]

Per your comment at this sock puppet investigation, while one of the accounts is currently blocked, it is for a set number hours for previous edit warring, not indeff for the block evasion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I guess User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js is making me lazy and just assuming "blocked is blocked." I upgraded it to indef. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oops I had linked the wrong account. Thanks for finding and blocking the correct one! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Internet Traffic Exchange page deletion issue

[edit]

Hello,

Can you tell me what is wrong particularly with this page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahan.hovsepyan (talk • contribs) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Internet Traffic Exchange "ARMIX" Foundation. There is insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:CORP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]

SPI

[edit]

I moved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Treeyoyo to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConradJack, which is standard when the master isn't the master or one of the socks is actually older. Not sure how familiar you are with that. Ping me if there is a question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{SPIarchive notice}} as well, which we use when moving cases unless the case was horribly misfiled (i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Treeyoyo). --Rschen7754 17:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for letting me know. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't use those templates when the master is innocent of any wrongdoing, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your input

[edit]

Hello, this is Akuri again. I raised an issue here that I'm trying to figure out how to deal with. I know you've helped me a lot already, but can you give any help or advice about this situation? 188.142.108.23 (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something I'm confused about. If you have access to so many IPs, then why are you editing while logged out? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since Timotheus Canens hard blocked my current default IP range (101.0.*), all of the IPs I have been using are proxies. The 110.32.* range is the ISP that I used to use, but I'm not registered with them anymore now that I have free internet access with my employer's network. The proxies that now are my only way to edit are very slow and they go up and down a lot, so when I try to log in or out with one the connection often times out. Because I often edit from computers that don't belong to me and I'm not in control of my employer's network, I also always have been concerned about account security. It was worth it to log in to edit and log out when I was done when my IP range was soft blocked, because then that was the only way to edit from my default IP range. But now that I have to use proxies whether I log in or not, having to log in and log out while still trying to keep my account secure is an additional difficulty and a risk without any benefit. 186.227.61.51 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic 2013

[edit]
Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (Oakland, CA)

This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!

Location and Directions

[edit]
  • Location: The grassy area due south of Children's Fairyland (here) (Oakland Wiki)
    • Nearest BART: 19th Street
    • Nearest bus lines: NL/12/72
    • Street parking abounds

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity Engine

[edit]

I don't see how to interpret this closing, as the only editor that even hinted that there might not be a WP:V problem did so by claiming that the nomination statement "No sources / references" was not "a valid reason for asking a AFD".  Your closing seems to confirm that "No sources / references" is not "a valid reason for asking a AFD".  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Except for BLPs, there is no requirement that sources be actually in the article, only that they exist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be talking about WP:NRVE in WP:N which says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."  But WP:V is a content policy, not a notability guideline.  WP:Verifiability policy states, "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."  WP:Deletion policy goes on to say, "If the article's content severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"completely deleted by consensus" - there wasn't a consensus to delete, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?  Do you agree that there was a consensus that the topic was notable but that the article fails WP:V?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a citation to Charity Engine's website. Primary sources are acceptable for supporting content in an article as long as its notability has been established already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Kww similarly noted, WP:V states, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources."  WP:SELFPUB in WP:V also applies.  Primary sources are generally not by themselves sufficient to support verifiability.  And this is not one of the exception cases—there is money involved, and while the citation added during the AfD verifies that the two words "prize draw" are not WP:OR, IMO the citation does more to use Wikipedia to recruit new volunteers (WP:PROMOTE) than it does source the article.  Do you agree that there was a consensus that the article failed WP:V?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing how either the addition of a citation or the infobox website link present at the start of the AfD means that the nomination argument was invalid.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the article is quite poor on WP:V, but I do not think there is consensus that it fails it so badly that it should be deleted. It is very, very rare for a non-BLP article to be deleted because there are reliable sources but they are not included in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:V requires that articles be based on independent, third-party sources. It's logically impossible to demonstrate that an article is based on independent third-party sources without pointers to them.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page P. Narahari

[edit]

Can I create that article again based on this source; http://tehelka.com/gwaliors-game-changer/ and later I will add more source as soon as possible? Shobhit Gosain (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that appears to be enough coverage. I have restored the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of user ༆

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I believe you blocked ༆ (talk · contribs) unjustly. I have no idea who this editor is, but your actions bothered me enough that I've decided to seek an explanation. According to you, "If you have multiple accounts, you must disclose them publicly." But according to Wikipedia policy, no you don't. Wikipedia allows a person to have a private alternative account when placing a notification "would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account". As far as I can tell, ༆ (talk · contribs) was not abusing his account. His block appears completely unjustified. --50.46.231.88 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block that user. In any case, he would have to have a legitimate reason to have an alternate account, which he didn't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he had a legitimate privacy concern, he wouldn't be at liberty to discuss it or acquiesce to your gratuitous demands on his talk page, would he? In any case, no one needs to justify why they have more than one account to you — it is you that needs to justify why you felt the need to ban (or threaten to ban) an editor who did not violate a single Wikipedia policy. --50.46.231.88 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/༆/Archive. Three well-respected users (Rschen7754, Richwales, and Jpgordon) have found sufficient problematic behavior to justify a CheckUser, which turned up positive. In any case, CheckUser-based blocks cannot be overturned by a normal admin like me; raise it up with WP:AUSC if you feel an abuse of CheckUser has taken place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extra information; the discussion was eye-opening. My suspicions were unfounded. I apologize for being short with you. --50.46.231.88 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames

[edit]

In what way is "Dongsweat" not a violation of our username policy?—Kww(talk) 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to block without consulting them, anyways. "Dong" could very easily be an Asian name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That pushes the assumption of good faith well past the breaking point. Did you consult with The Anome, or did you just take it upon yourself to override a valid block without consulting with the blocking admin?—Kww(talk) 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Username blocks are a dime a dozen; it's a judgment call whether to contact the blocking admin. For example, I unblocked KikeFolan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) without contacting the blocking admin and he was pleased with the result. Here I made a similar finding. (The more likely the blocking admin will be OK with an unblock, the more we need to take into account the interests of the blocked user. At a certain point, the expected value of blocking immediately at the risk of pissing off the blocking admin exceeds the expected value of delaying the request and pissing off the blocked user.) Now, if The Anome still thinks it is a blatant violation of the username policy, then I would not consider it wheel warring for him to reblock. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong. The purpose of UTRS is not to provide a path for you to override other admin's blocks without consultation and place them in the position of having to get your blessing that you wouldn't consider it wheel warring. With UTRS, the blocking admin doesn't event get the talk page notification that an unblock is being requested and considered. If the blocking admin is still active and the original unblock was not a blatant error, consult with the blocking admin. That's not some judgement call for you to skip when when you want to make a questionable unblock. If you continue to unilaterally override clearly legitimate blocks without discussion or consultation, I will seek to have your UTRS access removed.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it a "clearly legitimate block"? We simply don't block accounts that have made no problematic edits unless the username is a very obvious violation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Dong Sweat" is about as obvious of a violation as I could come up with, right up there with things like "Turd Breath". The main point is that your judgement is not the primary one. The blocking admin made a judgement call and blocked. The situation has not changed since the block. Even if you extend good faith to the point of thinking it's remotely possible that this is anything other than an intentionally offensive user name, it's improper to override another admin in this way without notification of discussion. There's no clear error here: there's simply the fact that you don't think we should block over this name. Username blocks do not require problematic edits, simply obvious offensiveness.
The fundamental problem here is that you seem to misunderstand the purpose of reviewing blocks. We look for errors on the blocking admin's part. We look for cases where the situation has clearly changed. We look for legitimate signs that the blocked user has come to understand why he was blocked. We don't simply substitute our judgement for that of the original blocking admin and override him if we disagree.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Is there a way I can see things on my watchlist that are over a month old? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EditWatchlist will give you a list of everything on your watchlist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have over 400 things on my watchlist and there are only a few I need to check that are over a month old. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on "all" to the right of "Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 days," it'll give you all the entries sorted in reverse chronological order. I don't think there is a way to get it to show only things that are over a month old. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who would know a way how to go further back then a month? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try asking at WP:VPT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up.

[edit]

Hello. I mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_harrassment_by_User:Unscintillating. This is just a courtesy heads-up; I am not complaining about you there. Reyk YO! 04:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

The repetitive nature of the editing seemed to require the action - no sense of dialogue - just wham bam... cheers sats 07:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sca

[edit]

I've unblocked; see the link. I don't think you did anything wrong ... a sufficient reason for the unblock IMO was that MarcusBritish added a block template to the user's talk page after the block, giving the user got the impression that the blocking tool was being used to gain an advantage in a discussion. Also, I think there's a reasonable chance that a softer approach will work. Thanks much for your sock-puppet investigations work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock on hold

[edit]

There is an unblock request at User talk:Miranda Frost. You blocked the account as a sockpuppet, on the basis of Alison's checkuser report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. However, two other administrators, one of them a checkuser, have expressed doubt about her assessment, and I can't see any resemblance between the edits of the two accounts either, so I have put the unblock on hold, and asked Alison to have a second look at the case. You may like to have another look at the case, though not being a checkuser you won't be able to see any more than I can, and I am informing you mainly as a matter of courtesy. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind an unblock, but let's wait to hear back from Alison first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

[edit]

David Maxwell AfD

[edit]

Good call on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Maxwell (journalist). I was waiting to see how it would close. czar · · 07:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mediolanum

[edit]

With two socks created so closely together do you not think a checkuser is needed to look for sleepers? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If no mention of sleepers is made in SPI, then I assume the CU is being requested primarily to check the listed accounts. I've reopened the SPI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have mentioned the possibility of sleepers. Thank you for reopening. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry not found

[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, you recently found that sockpuppetry wasn't likely in an instance I raised. Given that I notified 4 users of the discussion, do I need to do anything now that it's closed, is an apology warranted from me? Thanks for your help FlatOut 10:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not expected for you to do that, but I guess it would be a nice gesture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion reviews

[edit]

When a category is deleted and overturned is anything suppose to be put on its talk page (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 5)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Hi KOH. Can you take a quick look at User talk:INeverCry#Why keep one page while you delete the other? The deletion per R2 was likely wrong, but the page was created by a sock. Do I restore it, or should it be re-created? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and recreate it. (If it were an actual article created by a sock, and people thought the content was really worth retaining despite being created in violation of a block/ban, then we'd have to restore it based for GFDL compliance. But a mere redirect is ineligible for copyright.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I've re-created it. INeverCry 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Account - Braveyoda

[edit]

Hello, what is going on? I logged in today after being away for a few days and my account has been blocked. I am being accused of being some sock puppet. I can assure you that I am NOT a sock puppet but a legitimate person. I see on my account that I am being accused of being a sock puppet of someone named Lightspeedx. As I had already mentioned, I am not a sock puppet of this person. Do I know Lightspeedx in real life? I could know him/her if you can tell me his/her real name. But I do not know who anyone's Wikipedia handle is. Ever since I came on to edit the Erica article, I've been accused non-stop of this malicious lie that I am someone's sock puppet. If there is some sort of dis-allowance to edit her article, then please delete my edit. I came on edit her article because I had attended a memorial of hers and her article was mentioned and was encouraged to help with information on her. I am sure many other people heard the same message and came on to edit or support each other. Are they ALL sock puppets too??!?!? If you wish to accuse me of this malicious lie, then at least show me evidence of what I am being accused of. When I was accused the first time, I asked for hard evidence such as my IP address or my name or anything that links of me this alleged crime or lie that I am someone else's account. I have mentioned I knew Erica and being so, I could possibly know of all the people who edited her article in real life. It's a small circle of people and more or less, everyone knows everyone. I may not know Lightspeedx but he/she may know me in real life. Is there some rule in Wikipedia that people cannot know each other in real life or support each other? As said, Wikipedia is not my center of life and I don't spend hours learning its rules. So if you have some sort of rule that people can't know each other in real life or support each other or even edit someone's article whom they know, then let me know. As said, you can delete my edits, I don't care if you keep my edits or not as it's not important to me. I have voiced my opinion on what is right/wrong because I was invited to some mediation thing going on and most likely that is what has triggered off this block. I didn't know Wikipedia did not allow people to voice their opinions either. So if that's the case, delete what I've said as well. What I don't want is to be accused of some malicious lie based on hearsay. I hereby request for you to unblock my account, please. I do not want to be accused of lies. I can only deduce that my timing was really bad and I made my account at the wrong time and walked right into some disputes on the article. That may be true and maybe that is what I am most guilty of. Seriously, please lift my block and please leave me alone. I am not worth your time and effort, trust me. I am just some insignificant Wikipedia author who comes on once a week or once a month, if that. 208.54.86.210 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightspeedx. There is very strong evidence against you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

[edit]

to two upcoming Bay Area events:

  • Maker Faire 2013, Sat/Sun May 18-19, San Mateo -- there will have a booth about Wikimedia, and we need volunteers to talk to the public and ideas for the booth -- see the wiki page to sign up!
  • Edit-a-Thon 5, Sat May 25, 10-2pm, WMF offices in San Francisco -- this will be a casual edit-a-thon open to both experienced and new editors alike! Please sign up if on the wiki page if you can make it so we know how much food to get.

I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review: David_Maxwell_(journalist)

[edit]

Dear KoH,

Thank you for closing this review: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Maxwell_(journalist).

I would like to ask you how to take this forward, because I have serious doubt whether commentators really understood the matter. If they truly did, than this in my opinion, has consequences because it would require to rewrite some of the current policies on notability and/ or verifiability.

Please advise how to proceed. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the arguments for keeping are rather weak. However, an AfD with 5 "keep" !votes and no "delete" !votes other than the nominator simply cannot be closed as "delete," because there would have to be consensus for deletion and a single person does not count as consensus no matter how you construe it. In fact, this is probably the first AfD with 5 or more unanimous keeps I've ever closed as anything other than "keep." If you still want to have it deleted, you could wait a month and then relist it on AfD. (Without the delay, people tend to get restless and say "speedy keep, we just discussed this.") -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply and detailed information! Mootros (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal provides number

[edit]

Should the visibility be secured for this particular edit...just in case? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 05:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked all of the vandal's edits to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 06:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Behavioral evidence

[edit]

Regarding behavioral evidence for the Festermunk case, could you please look at it again and explain to me how it is insufficient? Is there any other user whose behavior could be misconstrued as this user? I respect your decision and I'm willing to let this go, but I think the user is one step ahead of CU. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they have similar interests, does not mean they are the same person. All the diffs you presented only served to establish that the users were alike; more evidence would be needed to prove sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is very hard to hide for a long time; if they are indeed a sockpuppet, it will eventually come out, maybe after a few months or years. But unless and until that happens, they are innocent unless proven guilty. By the way, the very act of asking for CheckUser is implying that behavioral evidence alone is not enough. Otherwise, if we would reach the same conclusion regardless of whether CheckUser came back positive or negative, then what's the point of asking for CheckUser? (Yes, sometimes we want to check for sleepers so we ask for CheckUser even if behavioral evidence is clear, but this does not appear to be one of those cases.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we aren't looking at the same case. The case I'm looking at shows much more than similar interests, it shows identical disputes and edits. I requested CU not because I thought the evidence wasn't good enough but because that's what the CU page recommended based on the status of the accounts. Further, there is no way this could be a different user, and the fact that the user was blocked right as Winter classes ended and appeared two weeks later in a different continent is consistent with a student returning home after the end of the school year. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is speculation. Even if it's more likely than not that they are a sockpuppet, that's not enough. There must be clear and convincing evidence for a sockpuppetry verdict without CheckUser. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation about their location, yes, but not speculation about their behavior. Their location, in and of itself, should not be the basis of any analysis. I would expect a typical sockpuppet who knows what they are doing to be editing from a different location. Anyone can do it. But let's not go into BEANS territory. You say there must be clear and convincing evidence for a sockuppetry verdict without CU. I requested CU because on the main page it says to open a CU in case of "evasion of community-based bans or blocks". I didn't open it because the evidence wasn't good enough. Looking at the evidence right now, are you saying this is a coincidence? Down to the same use of the ref name=about on the same type of dispute filed under the same 30? There's no possible way that could be a coincidence. Anyway, I already said I'm willing to let this go, but I can't imagine how the evidence could be any better than this. The same pointy editing on a NATO bombing of Kosovo-related page? The same edit warring over the addition of "left-wing" to biographical lead sections? There's no way this is a coincidence. I'm curious how it could get more "clear and convincing" than this. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people get desperate, but this is just an obsession. Gobbleygook (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's called cleaning up your mess. I'm going though all of the edits made by User:Festermunk right now and reverting them as I go because many of them are clearly erroneous showing either incompetence and/or disruption. I'm also keeping track of them here. Because the community waited two years to indefintely block him and nobody ever cleaned up his mess, I'm volunteering to go through his edits now. Who will go through your mess while the community lets you edit? Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the outcome of the sockpuppet report? I'M NOT FESTERMUNK. Ironically I'm also going through the editing history of Festermunk and all of that user's sockpuppets and it seems that, speaking of sockpuppetry, your editing patterns are very similar to that of user Xenophrenic...so I guess you won't mind if I launch an SPI to make sure that's not the case? Gobbleygook (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your track record when it comes to honesty is about zero at this point. Recently, you claimed that your edits were supported on the talk page, while myself and other users pointed out to you that no, your edits were not supported, and we had made it very clear that your edits were not supported, so for you to claim that your edits were supported and then go about making disputed edits on your own, indicates you have a very poor track record when it comes to honesty, so you will please excuse me when I say "I don't believe you". Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as eaning you won't have a problem filing the SPI; duly noted and will act accordingly. By the way where am I making this "making disputed edits" thing you keep talk about? Gobbleygook (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it as a badge of honor to have an SPI submitted by an obvious sockpuppet like yourself. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
King, as per this edit by user Viriditas would you like to have the pleasure of just banning the user once and for all? Gobbleygook (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appreciated if you two could continue your discussion elsewhere, like on the ANI thread or on one of your own talk pages. I'm sure T. Canens would appreciate that as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted and apologies for the inconvenience.Gobbleygook (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, you should be made aware that Gobbleygook is now restoring edits originally made by Festermunk.[1] As you can see, Festermunk originally removed the statement "Larry McCarthy being famous for the Willie Horton ad" on 28 April 2011.[2] Upon reviewing these edits, I see that the cited source fully supported it, and I restored it with more content from the source. Gobbleygook just now reverted to Festermunk's version. Is that evidence clear enough for a duck block? Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is possible that their political views are just quite similar to those held by Festermunk. WP:DUCK needs to be very obvious, and right now it's not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's reverting to a version last made by Festermunk on 28 April 2011! Why would someone with similar political views do that? This duck is quacking hard. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can hardly be called a revert. There is no similarity in the two edits beyond the fact that both are trying to downplay the role of Larry McCarthy. (For edit warring purposes, it may qualify as a revert, because there what matters is the effect of the edit. But for a sockpuppetry investigation, that would be like saying, if user A introduced the Boston Marathon bombings to Islamic terrorism today and got reverted, and then user B reintroduced it in 2014, with completely different wording, they're socks of each other.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gobbleygook directly reverted to a version of Sinophobia, a version authored by Festermunk on 28 April 2011. Festermunk originally removed this material in 2011, and Gobbleygook returned today to remove the same material. Gobbleygook reverted to Festermunk's version. This isn't different wording. They both removed the exact same words, "Willie Horton". This is about as duckish as it comes. Why would an editor who is trying to clear their name start reverting to a version of an article by the sock they are accused of being?? I'm sorry, but this is very clear, and the evidence I left on the CU page is also very clear and direct. Why is Gobbleygook editing Sinophobia and making the same edits as Festermunk? Please don't tell me "because they share the same interests". This is ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit is not something anyone could possibly call "behavioural evidence" as it is an intuoitively obvious one -- if a person is being used in an article on Sinophobia, the fact he produced the "Willie Horton attack ad" is pretty much going to be considered irrelevant by a great many editors, and not of sufficient import to the article. Unoless, of course, the intent was not to write about "Sinophobia" but to insert a parenthetical attack on a living person here? I do not know whether I would have made the edit - but it is absolutely not "evidence" here. As for "duckish"? Not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, the last time I agreed with you, oh wait, that's never happened in eight years. Carry on. There is no attack on any living person, and the source is cited just as it reads. How is it an attack to mention the work a notable person is most known for? It's not an attack, it's encyclopedic style. Try again. If I write, "George Lucas, best known for Star Wars, am I attacking George Lucas? Really, Collect, I have to wonder where do you get this stuff from? It's not even reality-based discourse. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fear your comment is on the order of "if I don't like the message, I will attack the messenger." If you wrote "George Gnarph, who has three drunk driving convictions, " in an article on automobiles - then that is, indeed, a BLP issue. And I suggest you redact your personal attack "It's not even reality-based discourse" as being an attack on an editor and not a discussion of the fact that your "duckish" evidence, ain't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, in what reality does that even make sense? How does mentioning the notable work that a person is known for equate with a criminal record? Please, come back down to reality. It is encyclopedic style to mention notable work associated with notable people, especially so when the source does it. This is done to give the reader a reference point to the work under discussion and to allow them to understand the subject of the discussion beyond that of a simple name. Crack open a book sometime, go on it won't hurt. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pead WP:NPA. Attacking others on an admin's talk page verges on foolishness. FWIW, my only interaction with Gobbley that I find was to revert edits he made - so I have no special interest here at all, and certainly no animus towards you. IIRC, we have exceedingly few articles where we intersect at all, and I do not recall precisely that you bore an animus towards me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no animus towards you (or anyone else). I actually have agreed with you many times in the past, but we did rub elbows on the JBS article, in case you forgot. I think the last time we agreed together was in the Marcus Bachmann discussion(s). Anyway, sorry for coming at you like a Klingon grint hound. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

laughing

[edit]

[3] looks like I got proved wrong huh? haha XD Good one, completely caught me by surprise. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 21:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

similar names

[edit]

You have a message from March at User talk:King of hearts.  That is the talk page arrived at by typing "User talk:King Of Hearts" in the Search box and clicking on "Go".  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monkelese

[edit]

Hello I just logged in today and saw that I have been tagged of sock puppet..which I just learned of today. I will be honest I first created a first account which I later forgot the password and then created another which is Monkelese which I use now till now...sometimes I do not log in and edit.. My Ips are mostly different because I log in on different devices and different locations to edit on wikipedia...I only contribute not vandalize... please don't block me I enjoy contributing to wikipedia (Monkelese (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Is Libby995 the other account you are talking about? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I just had no idea it was wrong or not done, thought it was like creating two email addresses..I never attacked anyone or vandalize the pages...apologize for it and will use Monkelese only from now on, however I will use different ips due to different locations I go to (Monkelese (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Editing in different locations can give you different IPs, but as long as you always log in, your IPs will not be publicly visible and all your edits will be attached to your account. Do you agree to always log in when you want to edit? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will log in when I edit..Hope my case is solved (Monkelese (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

OK, thanks. The case is resolved. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About spam warning

[edit]

Hi, you posted a spam warning on my page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saslanov) regarding a link to skating system calculator in article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skating_system). But this is not a spam. There was another link to this calculator, but it broke after moving to another hosting. So I fixed the link. I don't have any profit from it, and this calculator is useful tool, which many users asked me to put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saslanov (talk • contribs) 06:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be very careful when inserting links to your own websites, because of the possibility of appearing to have a conflict of interest. Even if you do not profit from the link, you should not insert it in articles; others will insert it if they feel it is useful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, thanks for explanations. Saslanov (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)

[edit]

Yes King of hearts this is Edwestminster78.149.173.128 (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) an amateur I found a message in my inbox concerning my comments on Wildlife and Eco-Tourism and did state there is no difference between Wildlife tourism and eco-tourism because they two are specifically are talking on biological products that might be in protected known as zoo's or National protected zones or game reserves, all these aim at conserving biodiversity, there are some species that are not within protected areas but they are bound to be classified in biological species.[reply]

In that regard I would like to have anyother Editor to have an independent comment and since I lack expertise of using this Wikipedia I have seen that you have commented on my talk page, I would suggest that someone more experienced makes a comment on this

78.149.173.128 (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what do you want to do, specifically? Are you trying to create an article, edit an existing article, etc.? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block update

[edit]

Just as a wee FYI, I ran a check on User:Theroadislong based on UTRS #7647. I'm sure it will come as little surprise that they can back  Confirmed as User:Kelly Pelaou. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Don't know why they filed an SPI against themselves though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! That was a terrible cut and paste on my part. The UTRS request came from User:Theroadismuchlonger who you had already blocked as a sock. I was just letting you know that the socking was now confirmed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow- up: I have unblocked Theroadislong and have offered them my apologies. Please feel free to trout me at your leisure. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Scott Guy

[edit]

Hi you recently deleted/moved the article on Ewen Macdonald to the Murder of Scott Guy. Could you please make it available to be assessed for inclusion. I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Offender9000 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good enough, so I've moved it to the main namespace. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIV and Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. Please don't discourage valid AIV reports by pointing at general summaries when they fall under a clearly noted exception.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

[edit]

IranitGreenberg

[edit]

Hey, I mentioned you here. Just in case you wish to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, in hindsight, I should have just come here and not posted my comment at ANEW. My apologies for that, and thanks for logging the sanction.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers and IPs

[edit]

Re: this statement. Checkusers may, at their discretion, link IPs to accounts. It's permitted under privacy policy in many circumstances (such as the one in this SPI report). Different checkusers have different standards (in this case, DeltaQuad would probably refuse, Amalthea would undoubtedly agree). If the suspicion of sockpuppetry looks well-founded and the evidence is decently presented, it's not the role of a clerk to refuse an SPI report like this.—Kww(talk) 06:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page stalker) This actually is not correct. It is the role of a clerk to endorse and decline requests for CU. And meanwhile, while under the privacy policy it is allowed, if you read the policy, release of information must be "minimal." In over 90% of cases like this one, we can use behavior by itself to make the determination and do not need CU. --Rschen7754 06:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am aware of that. However, if I see something where CheckUser is clearly inappropriate, I just say "CheckUser cannot link accounts with IPs" as a shorthand for "CheckUser will only link accounts with IPs in exceptional circumstances, and yours is not one of them, since the abuse is not high enough to warrant this action." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The longer form is much better. Declining the case as not needing CU would have been reasonable too, because it really didn't. The link between the IP and the editor was obvious. It was that obviousness that rendered the CU unnecessary. The blanket statement that CUs will not link IPs to accounts is false, though, and perpetuates a myth. They can and sometimes will, and people shouldn't come to expect reports that target IPs will be summarily rejected. CU can be run against IPs, and what they do with the data is up to the CU.—Kww(talk) 06:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's not entirely true though - in 90%+ of cases, reports that target IPs are summarily rejected. --Rschen7754 06:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even then, the rejection should take the form of saying that a public link will not be made, but if the reporter chooses, they can refer the matter by e-mail. I deal with a lot of IPs. As an admin, I normally just block them, and then e-mail a checkuser asking him to reverse me if I've misstepped. Before I was an admin, I would e-mail the checkuser with the report, and, more often than not, the IP would be quietly blocked later.—Kww(talk) 07:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But even still, this is unnecessary when we have behavior to look at. I think you misunderstand what the overriding purpose of CU is - CU is just one tool that can be used to determine if two users are connected. CU is not the only tool. Doing what you propose would result in an added flurry to the overloaded CUs, and emails being sent to CUs who are inactive (unfortunately at least half of the listed CUs are inactive). Furthermore, I'm a bit concerned that you're basically imposing your views on the clerks/CUs without considering their opinions. --Rschen7754 08:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that CU was not needed in this case. That's why I blocked the IP and warned the editor without one. That doesn't mean that making false statements in the response to valid SPI queries is the right answer. It's not my opinion that the statement made doesn't represent policy.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab–Israeli War unprotection request

[edit]

Hi KoH. :) There's been a request for unprotection of 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at this RFPP section. Could you comment on it if you have a moment? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual

[edit]

An unusual User:Mogilevich has turned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.110.150 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is your problem with this user? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is someone impersonating the criminal as a joke. I think impersonating anyone is banned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.110.150 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Semion Mogilevich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.110.150 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sales and The Duchy of Effenhauer

[edit]

As the admin who dealt with a previous faux-sock, could you please delete these two pages as well? They are accounts belonging to my father and have no affiliation with me other than the fact that I used the latter to refute it belonging to me (ass-uppards? Yes, and that's why 13 year olds shouldn't edit Wikipedia).--Launchballer 14:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary 2013!

[edit]
Wishing King of Hearts/Archive/2013/05 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! LovelyEdit talkedits 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock SPI request

[edit]

Can you take a look at User_talk:108.180.5.249. Static IP was blocked as a possible sock but didn't seem like it was confirmed. Mkdwtalk 21:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my case. User:108.180.5.249 07:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add to Spam-BlackList

[edit]

Hello, could you please add [link removed] to the Spam-BlackList. A rotating series of throwaway IPs is being used to add irrelevant links to this in articles, see for example [4]. I'm not sure if there's an "official" way to request adding something to this list, I just looked at the list edit history, saw the names of those who have edited it, and picked yours more or less at random. Thanks... Zad68 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

[edit]

Can you come down to Yip SPI

[edit]

Hi. I have requested a Checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip. Can you come down and check it out. I ask for a Checkuser because his habits, especially is most recent ones (evidenced in the SPI) are similar to JY's. Also, he claims on his talk (TheSyndromeOfaDown) that he is a sock of someone for WP:ANI archive 797, thread 66. We need to figure this out, so either he is site-banned alone, or he is site-banned and the "real" sockmaster receives an indef block with no talk page or e-mail. Hope this helps. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

[edit]

Recently, I noticed that IP 63.92.242.185 is an IP that Jonathan Yip used. However, it has been making constructive edits to airport articles, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport. Does his edits stay as is, or do they need to be reverted and re-added by a non-affiliated user? I'm just wondering, because at WP:BAN, it says all must be reverted, but I don't want to get too involved with the reverts? Thanks, Vigyani. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BAN, a banned user should not edit even from IP. But a very clear proof is need that a given IP belongs to a banned user. Usually many editors have divided opinion on these matters. However the policy is to block such IP's. But I do not think that edits will be reverted if they are constructive. Moreover there is difference between a block and ban. In case of a block, editor can not edit anything (and can be from 24 hours to indefinite). In case of banned, user is restricted from certain topics. For example one may be banned from editing article related to say Christianity, but he will be certainly allowed to edit article about say Islam. In the present case, if you are sure that IP belongs to Yip, then I think best course will be to inform AS, and if he agrees he should file a SPI. In such cases, I just keep a close watch, check all the edits and take action only if there is un-costructive edits. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.The IP has been confirmed as one Jonathan YIP used. JY is site-banned indefinitley. Hope this info helps. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 11:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
after replying you, I read Yip's sock investigation and found that this IP was blocked as Yip's IP for 6 months. Now if the block is lifted from this IP, there must be some reason. Probably it is assumed that after say a 6 month period, the IP may not belong to Yip. I suggest you to ask this question to an admin. But mention that you are asking only out of curiosity and you do not have any intention to pursue this. Even if it is proved that this is Yip again, I strongly advise you not to take any action and just leave it.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conversation from User talk:Vigyani, who suggested bringing it to a good admin. So here's the deal: An IP (see the address above) is a confirmed sock of banned user Jonathan Yip, but is making constructive edits recently. Do they still have to be reverted (per WP:BAN) and another editor add the constructive things, or do they stay as is? No reason to start an SPI thread, just a curiosity question? Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the subject area and editing style, it is still very clearly Jonathan Yip. Per WP:BAN, all of its edits may be reverted. Of course, it makes no sense to revert things like vandalism reversion and grammar corrections, but otherwise edits should be reverted even if they appear to be constructive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gruesome...

[edit]

Hi there,

Considering your unblocking of User:Gruesome Foursome [5] could you perhaps review his recent conduct at ITN (WP:ITN/C and WT:ITN)? He's been a highly aggressive presence ever since his unblocking. Thanks, --LukeSurl t c 17:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech news: 2013-22

[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. [11] [12]
  • The software will check if all uploaded files are secure and match their type. [13]
  • The Wikimedia Commons Android app will come out of the beta phase on its next release. [14]
  • Account creation by manual log-in will now be recorded in the account creation log (bug 42434). [15]
  • Links to file description pages will again be accessible directly from within videos (bug 43747). [16]
  • The software behind recent changes patrolling was re-written; the change fixes issues related to patrolling new pages, among other things. [17]
  • During a meeting, developers agreed on rules about making big changes to the software. [18]
  • There is now a category to list pages with invalid music code. [19]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Songboy193 "closed"

[edit]

Unless I'm missing something, don't CUs usually leave a note with their findings (or lack of) when doing a sleeper check? :/ :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want CU attention, you should change |checkuser=no to |checkuser=yes when filing the SPI. In this particular case, I just added in a CU request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not a regular SPI filer and I didn't edit the fields that told me "don't touch this if you're not a clerk". No harm done! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP 77.185.238.225 sock

[edit]

The anon jumped to a new IP. Care to apply the same treatment to user:77.12.11.45? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Thanks for dealing with that anon. I suspect that he will IP hop shortly, so drink quickly. But don't drink and edit! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-elements

[edit]

Sorry to disagree with you but I looked with utter disbelief at the record showing that you had unblocked Meta-elements (talk · contribs). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see http://www.meta-elements.com now. I'm looking with utter disbelief that Google would not turn up such a page on a search, which was my basis for determining it to not be a promotional username but rather a newbie test. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipediocracy (2nd nomination). If you search for "Volapük" you will see that I mentioned the AfD on the Volapük Wikipedia article, which I thought set a good precedent. You may want to look at the comments. I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a big time-waster for you. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Investigation

[edit]

Good day, King of Hearts. You had placed my account on block. I am not a sockpuppeteer. I am not sure what is usually done about SPI investigations, i.e. if there are further reviews. Can you advise me how I can clear my name of this SPI accusation? Were further investigations performed about this matter that can help clear my name? I am unsure how to proceed or who to go to or where to file anything to clear my name. My talk page still has your warning label on it. Thank you for your help. Lightspeedx (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the label from your talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your fairness and for helping me restore my good name. It means a lot to me. Is there anything else I need to do to clear my name? I am very unsure of what else I should be doing (or maybe there is nothing else to do?). Your guidance is very much appreciated. Lightspeedx (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2013/05&oldid=1090533796"