16 May 2024
News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

December 10, 2006–December 31, 2008 <span id="December 10, 2006–December 31, 2008"> December 10, 2006–December 31, 2007 January 1, 2008–February 29, 2008 March 1, 2008–March 31, 2008 April 1, 2008–April 30, 2008 May 1, 2008–May 31, 2008 June 1, 2008–June 30, 2008 July 1, 2008–July 31, 2008 August 1, 2008–August 31, 2008 September 1, 2008–September 30, 2008 October 1, 2008–October 31, 2008 November 1, 2008–November 30, 2008 December 1, 2008–December 31, 2008 January 1, 2009–December 31, 2009 <span id="January 1, 2009–December 31, 2009"> January 1, 2009–January 31, 2009 February 1, 2009–February 28, 2009 March 1, 2009–March 31, 2009 April 1, 2009–April 30, 2009 May 1, 2009–May 31, 2009 June 1, 2009–June 30, 2009 July 1, 2009–July 31, 2009 August 1, 2009–August 31, 2009 September 1, 2009–September 30, 2009 October 1, 2009–October 31, 2009 November 1, 2009–November 30, 2009 December 1, 2009–December 31, 2009 January 1, 2010–January 31, 2010

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'd like to try it out, could you please add my name to the Kissle permission page? Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Connormah (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great anti-vandal efforts, and blocking vandals. Most of the vandalism you revert looks like silly, childish vandalism. Keep up the Anti-vandal efforts! December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.delanoy, just a quick note regarding this case, or more specifically regarding the sockmasters user page. Do you think that you could remove everything currently on User:Bambifan101 (except for the link to simple:User:Bambifan101) and replace it with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=Bambifan101}} (I would myself but its protected). Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on second thoughts, please leave the {{banneduser}} too. Thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 05:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks from me too. Just out of curiosity, were the new ranges you blocked from BellSouth or did he find some other way into this site? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are small ranges, and have odd registrants. I'm betting that they are businesses or libraries or something. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock is  On hold awaiting comment from you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never know what to do with those CU blocks. The last time I dealt with one, I sent an email to the functionaries list, which of course was put on hold because I'm not a subscriber to the list, then like three days later the user was unblocked, but that one was an autoblock that just caught an innocent person... Anyway thanks for responding. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just ask the blocking admin, or any checkuser on their talk page. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J.delanoy. I'm looking at the block log, seeing your username blocking ridiculous names like "The account password is poop" or "The account password is vomit" or "The account password is crap" or those. It's funny. Blocky cuzco (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be blocking a sockpuppet. Which makes me wonder; Can I leave a message on one of those inappropriate name saying if he/she is a sockpuppet? Or will I get blocked for it? Blocky cuzco (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are sockpuppets, and they are blocked without talk page access. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm going to go for the "The account password is vomit" and notify him/her of the sockpuppet abuse and inappropriate (yet funny) usernames which got him/her blocked on the talk page. Blocky cuzco (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend. It's me again. I looked at the Wikipedia:AIV, and found this abusive user User:Ryan3896490. Please block him. He removed warnings on his talk page to make it look like no one has saw his edits. Blocky cuzco (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. I can't find an SPI case related to this, so was this block based upon a random CU? JamieS93 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay. JamieS93 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you made a mistake in the blocking of User:Baseball1015. I highly doubt he's a sock, and most of his contribs are reverting vandalism. Excuse me if I'm wrong. Connormah (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am virtually certain I am right. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Connormah (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on that, J. This just doesn't seem like a classic MascotGuy sock. The naming convention, use of edit summaries, types of edits, none of it fits. If it is indeed MG, this is by far the most lucid sock I've ever seen. He might well be on a MG server, but I'm fairly convinced this isn't him. Just my opinion and I'll defer to yours. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I emailed some people to ask their opinion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.! Further to our earlier interaction regarding the above-captioned editor, I think that User:Rachel-K-T might be yet another sock of said editor. The account was created at 18:15 on January 18, and by 18:34 was making the same legal article edits as we had earlier reverted by socks associated with User:FLPTrainor.

Another reason I suspect a sock puppet is that it seems odd that the first edit by a brand spanking new wikieditor would be made using WikiCleaner and have this edit summary: “WikiCleaner 0.98 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!” And, to be honest, that edit summary lacks any of the wikilinks that I seem to recall WikiCleaner usually leaves.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. It is very much appreciated. — SpikeToronto 04:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've bugged you here. Anyways, if you're on, are you willing to get your banhammer out? There's a backlog at AIV and some of them are really starting to get annoying. —LedgendGamer 05:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that was the biggest-looking backlog of 2 users I've seen in a while. Thanks anyways. —LedgendGamer 05:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any connection to User:Blocky cuzco? The editor (who, importantly, admits to being 9 yrs old) has you listed on a edit notice for his talk page but I don't see any connection (like a mentorship or the like) implied, only that he took one of messages to assume you'd watch his back. I only ask as the user has uploaded two image files, citing them as free but clearly failing copyright or other NFC policy, and if he is 9 years old, I'm worried about trying to explain this to him from several different perspectives. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen him before today. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to get through to a user who is adding wholesale data points to numerous articles that are uncited and in several cases clearly erroneous, yet does not respond to posts and warnings on his talk page, User talk:190fordhouse. This user has been warned multiple times by several editors but never responds, just keeps on going. The data points are largely the dates a record was recorded (he generally adds the previous year to which a record was released, even when it was released quite late in the year, which may or may not be true but smacks of presumption to me; most albums by active artists on a major label take a few weeks to a few months to record and a few more weeks to master, press and ship; further, he's doing this to singles, which are generally recorded in anywhere from a few weeks to a day or two) and specific release dates that clearly don't add up to the chart data. Picking a song at random from his most recent edits, I note that he added one date, then changed the year (perhaps a typo), but then changed it to a completely different date. There might be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, and it might be the actual date for all I know (this isn't a page I watch or even a song I'm familiar with), but in other cases, he has been incorrect. If "Time After Time" was released somewhere on January 7, 1984, as he claims, then it's surely not the same place where he claims her followup single, "She Bop", was released only a month later, on February 17, 1984; or where he tells us her follow-up to that, "All Through The Night", was released only two months later, in April, all still months prior to when "Time After Time" peaked on the charts in the U.S., in June. This does not correspond to these records' chart histories (my recollection is that "All Through The Night" was released near the end of '84) and is not the way singles were released in a single territory in the 1980s. Another editor has accused him on his talk page of having other accounts as socks. In any event, he's unwilling to note where he's getting these dates from.

For my first few years here I made a point of not seeking to have editors blocked unless their edits were in the mode of racist epithets and death threats, but the longer I'm here the more I realize just how much a single user can corrupt data points across the project. Still, I'm not interested in being the police, I'd just like to know who to call on to assess a situation and handle it appropriately. While I'm happy to revert changes on pages I watch, when I find someone making erroneous or suspect changes en masse, I suspect that what's needed here is someone to roll back all this guy's changes, something a couple editors have been doing piecemeal. I stumbled on your page out of curiosity over a different issue, noted your bot-assisted vandalism-fighting cred, and thought I'd see if you could assist. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported there.--219.89.10.35 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On 1/16 I blocked Oneforanother1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as being a sock of GayleNuffer (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected). Today my user talk page was vandalized by Oneforanother2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). On a hunch, I checked and confirmed that both Oneforanother1 and Oneforanother2 were created at 13:29 on 13 January 2010. Combing through the new user registration logs, I also discovered the following:

13 January 2010:

• Oneforanother3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

14 January 2010:

• Oneforanother8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Oneforanother11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All eight were blocked and tagged for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GayleNuffer.

Without getting too BEANSy here, could you check and see if there were others that I missed, and/or examine the underlying IP to see if there a better solution available than playing Whac-A-Mole? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]