| Revision as of 15:39, 6 April 2013 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,162 edits →Questioned CU report: adding sig for clarification (because of interpolation) - it confused me, anyway← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:01, 30 December 2024 edit undoDoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,865 edits Undid revision 1266109674 by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)Tag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:DoRD/templates/User talk}}{{archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |maxarchivesize = 75K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 14 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(3d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:DoRD/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:DoRD/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!---------------------------------------------------------------> | <!---------------------------------------------------------------> | ||
| <!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ANYTHING ABOVE THIS NOTICE. THANK YOU. --> | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ANYTHING ABOVE THIS NOTICE. THANK YOU. --> | ||
| <!---------------------------------------------------------------> | <!---------------------------------------------------------------> | ||
| {{-}} | |||
| == Re: Socks == | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Yikes ... the ones I interacted with were just the tip of the iceberg, then! Thanks for letting me know. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 01:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppets and topic bans == | |||
| Hi, Thanks for doing the Humanpublic check. As I said on the SPI, I had forgotten about the IP. But I think it should probably be noted somewhere for them that the topic ban for Humanpublic extends to his puppets of course, so after a month Minorview would be subject to it, as well as future puppets, if any. Thanks. ] (]) 13:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I was going to ask the same thing. As I understand it, though, the rules are very clear. All blocks, topic bans and other restrictions apply to persons, not accounts. So after the one month block of Minorview is over, Minorview is still indefinitely banned from editing anything related to religion, as that was the ban imposed on Humanpublic.] (]) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, topic bans apply to the editor, not the account, as do site bans and blocks. That being said, I am not familiar with the details of their topic ban and only looked at the accounts with respect to the sockpuppetry. —] (]) 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Humanpublic was topic banned from religion around ten days ago . He has appealed the ban at ARBCOM with no success; nine arbitrators against, and none in favor. .] (]) 22:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == One more sock of ] == | |||
| I think speaks for itself. ] (]) 20:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I'd say that that's a pretty blatant admission. Blocked for obvious block evasion. —] (]) 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the swift action. Regards, ] (]) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For laundering the socks! ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks! —] (]) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Questioned CU report == | |||
| Hello, DoRD department. You made a checkuser report at ]. One of the accounts involved is now questioning your conclusions, at ]. Could you have a look at it? ] (]) 09:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <small>You know, I only just now made the connection between your current and previous usernames... somehow I had the idea that you were named for ]... ] ]‍] 09:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I haven't seen the CU report, of course, but already by ], I've suspected the two are the same. This overview is rather revealing . Besides, Minorview's protestations are identical in tone and style to the ones Humanpublic has always been making.] (]) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :JBW, I have made redundant checks on those accounts, and the evidence is perfectly clear: All three accounts named in the report, who all happen to edit in the same topic area, have used the same device from the same IP address. They're certainly free to file a second unblock request in the hopes that another CU takes a look, but I don't see how their conclusion would turn out differently.—DoRD (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. In fact, since I posted the above message, I have seen more evidence, which leaves me in no doubt whatever about the sockpuppetry. However, having such an unambiguous confirmation from you is yet one more confirmation. ] (]) 15:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{small|Yunshui, yeah I actually had not heard of the density thing until ''after'' I had my account renamed almost a year ago. :)}} —] (]) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just don't have time to participate in this too much, but I think you need to address some the points made on Minorview's Talk page. Is it true that Minorview and Humanpublic made edits within an hour of each other from IPs located a hundred miles apart? Is it true that Minorview's involvement in this issue only began after the numerous dramas on ANI (and AN) that called the community's attention to it? Is it true that the same IP they used was last used by Minorview in February, and it is a shared comnputer at a state university? ] (]) 15:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| == Sridhar100 == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| When you declined an unblock at {{User|Piggy58}} in March you noted that the account was probably a sock of {{u|Sridhar100}}. Could this also be the case for {{User|Alexander585}}, who has been blanking ] in a similar manner to Piggy? Is it worth pursuing at SPI, if only for logging purposes? - ] (]) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :. While they're not an exact match, the totality of the evidence convinces me. Thanks —] (]) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, although I don't really know the patterns. Meanwhile, back at Pnranjith, an SPI for which you CU'd yesterday, I rather think that we may be revisiting it before too long. Someone has just commented at ] and seems to know what socking is + how to link to ] despite claiming to be a new user. Ho hum. - ] (]) 17:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, they know about socking alright. The account is an exact match to the account that filed the SPI against you and is now blocked. Cheers —] (]) 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. I think that we could be playing whack-a-mole for a while yet. - ] (]) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == CU request == | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] has a ]: it's a duck with a megaphone (its actions are well described by peoples' months-old comments in this SPI's archives, plus the obvious name), and my next action after leaving you this note will be to block the subject of the new report. However, would you be willing to run a CU on the account to find sleepers? Talkback, please. ] (]) 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :I don't think that any of the SPI clerks or CUs saw the case until now because the case status tag was missing along with the rest of the formatting, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Anyway, I decided to run the check, but didn't see any other accounts. —] (]) 12:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> | |||
| ::Thanks! I only found it because PlatinumStar came to me directly to ask why nobody was paying attention, so I spent a little time explaining that he had to use the standard template, or nobody would notice. There are numerous other accounts with similar names, and this guy has a habit of picking names similar to his old socks, so it's good to know that there aren't (currently) any others out there. ] (]) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:01, 30 December 2024
 | Welcome to my talk page.
|
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)