User talk:Shalom Yechiel/Archives/May 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

E-mail

Hi Shalom, I've sent you an E-mail. Acalamari 17:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister

The Barnstar of Diligence
"The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service." Sceptre (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. Acalamari 21:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you a bit more active :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent/Photographs

I guess the easiest way to provide a certain level of verification of suggestions that these are different individuals would be to find photos of each holding up signs etc. I note that this has been mentioned elsewhere, has something like this ever been done? Adambro (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested before. I believe it is not necessary. Please see the parent page, User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent, for context. Briefly:
  1. Other evidence, unrelated to the photographs, suggests that these are different people. The photographs are a strong proof, but they are not the only proof.
  2. Poetlister, Londoneye and Taxwoman have all uploaded photographs of themselves in 2007.

See the log entries:

Poetlister

  • 30 July 2005: [1], mirrored on Wikivisual [2]
  • 21 December 2007: [3] uploaded to Wikisource on 23 December 2007.

Londoneye

  • 15 October 2005: [4], mirrored on Wikivisual [5]
  • 12 September 2007: [6] uploaded to Commons on 29 January 2008.

Taxwoman

  • 9 August 2005: [7], mirrored on Wikivisual [8]
  • 14 July 2007: [9] uploaded to Wikinfo.

In each case, the person in the photograph appears to have aged by about two years. I am no expert in determining age from photographs, but for young people in their teens and twenties, I would expect to see a slight change, and I do.

If you want to ask these people to hold up signs or whatever in order to be unblocked, that is your business. If you want them to demonstrate that they are real people who have a right to upload photos of themselves to the Internet, and have chosen to do so, then you are asking for evidence they have already provided. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see these images as evidence that these are different people. It would be quite simple for someone to acquire photos like this from the profile of someone on a social networking site. Since it is you that seems to be campaigning about some great injustice here, I'd suggest it would be in your interests to work towards finding some more conclusive evidence. I've got no real interest in getting involved here but you seem to be very interested. Whilst not being one hundred percent conclusive, the photos that I've suggested obtaining would be very useful in your campaign. Adambro (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Garhauer (2nd)

Links for ref -

Thanks for your attention re this sock puppet case.

However, you state that "all the other accounts are blocked". This does not seem to be the case.

Only the sock master and FIRST puppet accounts are blocked as a result of the 1st report. So you have only let Garhauer/Anchorbuddy off the hook with no consequences at all this time.

This user is a rep of a company producing a product they are trying to promote (the "Anchor Buddy" anchoring kellet)... their sock-puppets' collective edit history has been one of commercial spam, sabotage to content they don't like, ignoring of multiple escalating warnings, and blatant repeat sock-puppeteering. Rewih is attempting a more subtle approach, but nonetheless has ignored BOTH sock-puppet reports and associated correct procedure, and the account is merely yet another sockpuppet for circumvention of the 1st case result.

Your response is IMO a little weak!

bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the fact that Anchoring had not been blocked. My bad.
Since I'm not an admin, I can't fix that myself. I usually send requests of this nature to User talk:Rlevse. I still think one account should be left unblocked with a "topic ban" on the Anchor Buddy. I also observe that none of the accounts has edited in the last two weeks, so the situation is not urgent. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page. Also, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poyoyloar, you were close. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Np. Don't worry about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA for davidwr

Thanks for the offer. I'd like to hold off until mid-late summer though, my life is a zoo for the next few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister

See ANI, she's unblocked, but you probably knew that. I'm going to as for a CU on that SSP, there are two SSP reports involved, counter accusations and all. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mileycyruseminem

I indef blocked the sock. If Can't sleep disagrees after looking it over, he can unblock, but it looks clear enough to me. Thanks - KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

help?

I think I should ask you, as the admin who was dealing with the sockpuppet report against myself.

I was adding a comment, and after I had saved my edit, I noticed that the report was archived, and I shouldn't have added to it.

Do I leave the edit where it is? Should I remove it?

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already replied, I think I started my response before you archived it, but by the time I finished you had archived it (I type slowly while eating)

I've added all I wanted to add to it, so if it is still archived, it might as well stay that way.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, as it is related to the other ongoing case, perhaps having them both open makes sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's my thinking. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohab Zedek

Can you obtain and post a photo of the Mudejar plasterwork at OZ?Elan26 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

RE: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NotSarenne (2nd)

Sorry, I can't really look into this right now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask someone else. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Catacalism sockpuppetry.

any chance some change could be made, he vadalised both the entry for sockpuppetry here and my user page, twice, along with the original article he vandalised Circleville High School. Could something be done about this, he sure isn't being a helpful editor to wikipedia and seems only intent on vanalising things. [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 17:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked by Philippe. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Iwazaki

Hi. You archived this, then unarchived to allow for further comments. If you unarchive a case, I'd suggest that (a) you re-add it to the list of open cases at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, and also that you remove it from the list of archived cases (you'll find it at the bottom of the page). Bots archive closed cases automatically, and it's probably a bit confusing to have the same case archived twice...

Whilst your contributions to WP:SSP are very helpful, and a number of times I've reached my own conclusions and they have been the same as yours, I'm not sure whether as a non-admin you should be drawing conclusions and closing cases - a number of times deleted contributions constitute important evidence, and as a non-admin you wouldn't be able to see those. Any problems, leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The public face of GBT/C 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost without exception, when I close a case and archive it, I am simply observing that some other administrator has already issued blocks if the allegations are correct, or I am concluding that there is no basis whatsoever to issue remedies if the allegations are incorrect. In some cases it is clear that there was sockpuppetry but it did not violate policy or there is no need to take action: for example, if one user account and one IP address edited the same article in the same hour, but there was no abuse of process and it happened two weeks ago, then nothing needs to be done. As a non-admin, I am acting within my access level to handle cases like this. User:Rlevse has thanked me for taking some of the load off him, and he clearly wishes for me to continue responding to SSP reports as time and motivation allow.
In some cases, I make a determination that blocks are necessary, but I ask an administrator to perform the block. This is also okay. Part of the problem is that SSP is woefully undermanned: if I'm the first person who reads a report after it's been on the board for three weeks, that shows my response fulfills a specific need. I can do the grunt work of sorting through stated evidence and contribution logs to make a determination, and then, if I see blockable violations, I'll ask an administrator to press the "block" button. There really is no problem with this. If anything, SSP should be like AFD, where non-admins are welcome to comment, but only admins can perform the block. It's not like AFD because nobody wants to deal with these cases. They are complicated, they often involve dispute resolution, they take time to review, and they require an acquired set of skills. I have taken the hours necessary to acquire those skills. I have been working on SSP cases off and on for the last ten or eleven months. With that length of experience, I know I can offer useful opinions regardless of my access level.
I was unaware that I had to relist a case after I placed archive templates on it. In the future I will do that. In this specific instance the accused user wished to respond to the allegation against him made by another user whose SSP was also open, so the two cases were connected. Again, I simply didn't know about the technical issue, and I will be mindful of it if it happens again.
One other way to resolve the issue you raise is for me to request administrator access. I have failed RFA three times, most recently last November, because I vandalized Wikipedia last year and the year before. Although I said publicly I would not reapply for adminship until the end of 2012, I am beginning to reconsider. Clearly I have the ability to help in an area where help is needed, and to withhold my services out of spite for a past rejection, no matter how strong the consensus was at the time, seems not to be in the best interests of the project going forward.
I hope that answers your question. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that if you reactivate an archived case, you need to both remove the 'sspa' archive tag and also re-list it at WP:SSP. As for Shalom helping at SSP, I totally support him as his insight is extremely helpful and he's very good at it. Experienced and reliable non-admin help is welcome at most admin areas, such as closing non-controversial AFDs. One of the few areas where you need approval to help is being an arb clerk, which I am. This requires arbcom approval. If either of you have more questions, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, okay. Well, having looked back through I think it was this case that I was talking about in particular - you closed the report saying that Boowoo hadn't edited since 14 April which is something that, without being able to view deleted contributions, I don't think you can conclusively determine. I don't think a huge amount turns on it, but it's the point I was making in my earlier post.
I don't disagree with any number of things that you and Rlevse say - your help is much appreciated, particularly as WP:SSP is a permanently backlogged backwater which doesn't attract anything like the administrator attention that the rest of the project does, probably because it is an area which does require thought, care and attention to detail (attributes which I agree that you clearly bring to it). It's not entirely like AfD, though, and doesn't lend itself completely to non-admin determination, as in AfD the decision to be made is to be made on the basis of information which is clearly open to all editors to see.
Both of you seem to have interpreted my post as saying that you're not welcome at WP:SSP, or otherwise that your contributions are wrong in some way - I'm not, and if it wasn't clear from my post that I wasn't then I apologise. What I'm saying is that there is a very slight limitation to the assistance that you can give, and in this particular instance it may have been premature of you to close and archive the case given those limitations. Thanks. GBT/C 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. It is rare for a user to have only deleted edits over a three-week period without having any non-deleted edits. Even if I could view deleted edits, I might not have bothered to check.
Again, if I were to gain administrator access, that would solve the problem permanently. I am waiting until a year has passed since my last vandalism, which was last June, before I consider applying again. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, subject to having a look through your non-SSP contributions, you'll have my support when you do on the basis of what I've seen at SSP alone! The public face of GBT/C# —Preceding comment was added at 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Yechiel.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi shalom  !! thanks for the welcome and your help!! Persianknight (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delicate sockpuppet situation

Shalom, Shalom! Thanks for your speedy action to shut down this sockpuppet & puppetmaster. There's some ongoing difficulty on the project page that exposed this particular case, and I'm not quite sure how to handle it properly. Several of us, including at least two editors much more heavily involved in the project than I, strongly suspect that the user responsible for the 842U/BMWR1200C puppets is in fact also responsible for Vbclerate, Amarapura, Jingpho, and possibly Dddike. I can't speak for the others who suspect, but my own suspicions are based on the content, tone, style, and timing of these users' contributions to the discussion linked above, as well as certain of my suspects' having created their accounts very shortly after 842U's sockpuppetry was discovered and exposed, and/or having contributed only to this discussion. However, all of this is circumstantial, and I'm not clear on the standard of evidence required to initiate a puppetry investigation. I don't want to make extra work for anyone by filing an accusation that'll have to be tossed out as improper or frivolous.

Two further notes:

1. I do not regard disagreement with my opinions, interpretations, preferences, or actions as prima facie evidence of sock puppetry. I believe it is possible for reasonable people given the same situation to disagree, and I bear no ill will caused by disagreement (though I do take a dim view of those who behave badly and/or refuse to comply with the letter and/or spirit of Wikipedia policy, protocol, and rules).

2. It looks as if Jingpho and Amarapura are already categorised as suspected sock puppets of 842U. I'm not sure what the significance is of this categorisation. Does it mean they're under investigation, or just that someone suspects them? Who's authorised to categorise users as suspected sock puppets?

Any assistance or advice you can give will be much appreciated. Please respond here or on my own talk page, as you prefer.

On an unrelated topic: I make a lot of contributions to Headlamp and Automotive lighting, and I have some questions I've been unable to get answered regarding Israeli automotive lighting regulations. If you're amenable, may I ask some specific questions of you? Thanks, —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your section from the Evidence page, as it doesnt provide any diffs or follow norms of evidence gathering. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'm sorry about that. I'll provide evidence shortly. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Bedroom Boom

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Bedroom Boom, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atamachat 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I've left a "notability" tag. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Rfa

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Shalom. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

MFD note re: Talk:The weather in London

Following the original "keep" closure, a speedy deletion and reversion wheel 1, and a DRV; Talk:The weather in London is back at MFD again. If you are still interested in this page, please join in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London 2. (Note: notice sent to all editors of the first MFD that have not already been come in the new MFD.) Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton sockpuppet

I responded on my talk. Thanks. — Omegatron (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Rlevse#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FFnagaton, what was the other case? Re on my page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More responses on my talk page. Thanks. — Omegatron (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that it had been closed, sorry. Thanks for your help on this. — Omegatron (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Route 65 (Israel)

Um, you redirected Route 65 (Israel) to itself. Corvus cornixtalk 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious Business (phrase)

You prodded this a minute after I tagged it for speedy deletion. Are you declining the speedy? Or is this the result of an edit conflict? —BradV 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it as plain vandalism. I would find it hard to believe that an article like that was created in good faith, given all the profanity and capital letters. Either way, I don't think anyone would want it to stick around in that form for the next five days. —BradV 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.108.119.24

Thank you for your input. Regarding my request for semi-protection of the Catherine Deneuve article, I detailed my reasoning on the suspected sock puppet case page. You said you didn't read the discussion on the page, so, I'll simply copy and paste the relevant portion (as it pertains to the semi-protection request) here:

As far as semi-protection is concerned, there was a historical context that I tried to convey to admins as to why the page should have been semi-protected, or even fully-protected, in my opinion. However, they decided not to protect the page. There was a dispute a couple of months ago between me and another user, in the same Catherine Deneuve article, that was almost identical to this most recent situation. Just like in the current ordeal, there were back and forth reversions, as I urged the user to please fully discuss the matter before attempting any full-scale edits. The user may have also been engaging in sockpuppetry as well - a case was filed by an admin, but the results came back "inconclusive." The administrators subsequently semi-protected, and for a short time fully-protected, the article, and thus, the user was finally forced to fully discuss the situation. The user and I came to a quick and constructive resolution. That's what I was hoping would happen in this particular situation, which is why I said a historical context should have been factored in to deciding whether or not to protect the article.

By the way, an RfC was opened on the Catherine Deneuve talk page. I don't know if you want to take a look at that, but feel free to add your input there as well. -- Luke4545 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ce fut en mai

Thanks. We can't have the translation on English Wikiquote due to copyright (unless someone who can prove he/she is the author gives permission). The original may well belong on the French Wikiquote but I don't have an account there. I'll archive my talk page as you suggest.--Poetlister (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Please remain civil and assume good faith.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there to have been any particular mistake. i do believe your comment to have been unhelpfuil.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet case

Thanks for your comment on my talk page, but I'm afraid I don't understand. The way to tell if it is a sock or not is to find out if the IP's match. Right? What was posted so far was a bunch of IP's that don't match.DianaW (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You wrote to me now:"Matching IP addresses is one way to link accounts, but there are other ways. For logged-in user accounts, only checkusers have access to IP addresses. I'm not a checkuser, so I need to request checkuser assistance if the IP addresses need to be examined. Also, even for logged-out editors, where the IP addresses are known, sometimes they do not match exactly. An IP address contains four numbers (A.B.C.D). Sometimes the first two numbers (A.B.) are the same, but the last two numbers (C.D) are different. This happens when a user has rotating IP addresses within the same IP range. In such cases, it is very likely that all IP addresses in the same range that edit the same article are the same user. Sometimes, for various reasons, it's possible that two entirely distinct IP addresses are nonetheless the same user. The technical details are complicated, and I don't understand them fully, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence between IP address and user account for most users over an extended period of time. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)"

All right, back up a bit here please. "If the IP addresses need to be examined" - don't they need to be examined, then? You have not told me that you have evidence that that person was a sock of Pete K. I would like to know what the evidence is. If you do not have any, do you not plan to get it? If you do not plan to get it, then on what basis did you block that user? Are we not right back where we started? Are you not telling me you have no idea if that user was Pete K?DianaW (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism on George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering. Ndenison (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I removed the warning you left for Erc0004 because I had just issued his only warning for the same offence. If you object (which I can't imagine you do, but stranger things have happened), then feel free to message me and we can discuss it.  Asenine  07:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's okay. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

HI

Hi, thanks for the message. Actually, if you look at my contributions, I quite often appear on this list!! Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC) PS you know me from Wikipedia Review, right? Peter Damian (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

thanks for clearing that--Yankees10 22:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)