User:Mixwell/scrolling

Excuse me, but why did you delete the redirect M.o.v.e to make way for a move, despite the consensus name at the talk page being Move (Japanese band)? --Prosperosity (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it was an uncontroversial move request; the only reason Ryulong couldn't perform the move himself was because of a bot edit that got in the way. I don't have an opinion about the move. PeterSymonds (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007/Archive

I would appreciate it, if you could take another look at this. Compare Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs). Similar usernames, and both make unsourced changes to "Razzie" Awards pages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there just isn't enough behavioural evidence for me to take any action here. I don't think this is a sock issue. The fact that similar usernames edit an article with a similar name and introduce unsourced edits over a year apart is not strong enough. I think this now needs to be addressed as a content issue; if the edits are problematic, feel free to bring them up on the applicable noticeboard. With a few fairly obvious differences in behaviour, I don't feel comfortable with labelling this user as a sockpuppet. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, User talk:Razzfan has been blocked repeatedly for that same behavior pattern. So you are correct, in that if it keeps up, the account will likely face escalating blocks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine if he's blocked; I'm not defending his behaviour, and I haven't particularly studied it. What I have studied are his behavioural patterns from a sockpuppet investigation point of view. I would just rather not see him blocked as a sockpuppet without sufficient evidence and, while convincing, there just isn't enough in my view. Another clerk may disagree before the case is archived. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case has already been archived. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this? Same exact articles, similar usernames, same pattern of adding unsourced info, articles include List of Total Drama series characters and List of General Hospital cast members and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress, etc. This is not simply coincidence. How can I appeal this sock investigation finding? Can you please have another look at the contribs of Razzinator (talk · contribs) with Razzfan (talk · contribs) ? -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - more evidence connecting Razzinator to Razzfan

Compare [1] with [2]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds, have you had a chance to compare these two diffs? This really is a case of WP:DUCK. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you closed the case prematurely. The new accusations are behaviorally based, not technically based, and the previous findings do not shed light on the behavior. I agree that a new CU check will not be helpful, but an experienced admin should review the behavioral suggestions and comment on their strength or weakness. Therefore, I reopened the case and put it into the non-CU section. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm well aware that checkuser is not the only form of evidence, and while my comment may not have been clear enough, I'm still not convinced that the behavioural evidence is adequate to suggest sockpuppetry. It was comprehensive but circumstantial at best. I read through everything before making my closing comment, and I'll read through it again, but I was not convinced. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if you read it through and decide that the behavioral evidence is insufficient, please note that. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, I talked with you on #wikipedia-en-help as Loki, and you helped me in marking my CI as edit=sysop as requested (Protection Log). Again, thank you for your help. --»Wolfnix« 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am interested in becoming a clerk at SPI. You were on the list of clerks and didn't have a trainee so I decided to contact you. I have Rollback and am familiar with the allowed uses of alt. accounts and am a fairly well established/ trusted editor. I know I'm knew but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the policies. I understand them and follow them. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your interest. At the moment our backlog is almost exclusively centred around the administration of cases (primarily blocking users). We have enough clerks to deal with the other bits, but we'll let you know if we need more. Thanks again. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense for you to be training new clerks for when you have a backlog of new cases? Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're really in need of more people who can take care of them by blocking users and making admin judgements based on things like deleted content and contributions. DeltaQuad and Spitfire (among others) adequately cover the non-admin side of things, but we're only after admins to train at the moment. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, please contact me when you need clerks again. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing what in the contributions points to User:Fabstoflops being a sock of anyone listed here. What in their contributions points to this?--Chaser (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The page Pete Burgess after tagging it for deletion for being created by a blocked user. The other socks of Googler459 started reverting vandalism in a similar way (using the same manual summaries for warning. It's also interesting, although probably not very relevant, that this user falsifies rollback and Igloo summaries when reverting edits. It was mainly a block based on the page and similar reversions; the user denying knowledge of Bonkers189 seems odd considering the page he tagged as being created by a "blocked user" was clearly tagged as Bonkers189. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.

LiteralKa (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st question: Hello, I have a question regarding talk pages. On English wiki we should use English language when we talk? Right? The use of other languages is not allowed?

2nd: About the warning I received[3] on the false request of User:Nmate, it is important to be retracted[4] because if another "report"[5] (where the result was case not valid) like this appear I could be banned for no apparent reason. Since the Admin who issued this warning is on indefinite Wikibreak I would like to ask you for the possibility of retracting this warning. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Palestinian leaders are habitual liars" is one of his comments from the talk page, where you can get an excellent impression of him. Anyway, I will be patient, but thought you should know he seems on a sometimes incoherent campaign to exclude all my (bloat-cutting) edits and to grow an already 140,000 plus bytes article with his 'even more bad stuff about Hamas'.Haberstr (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the history of your talk section to see the discussion of X3D edits started by me and vandalized by others. The issues have been resolved, but you should see what my original comments sparked. 138.88.65.145 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK you undid my revision, because the one, who this edit was addressed to read it already, but you do not know the whole story to decide what is and what is not appropriate. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you leaved me also curious. Why was it not appropriate? Iyow2 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am much more curious why a confirmed sock of a banned user is not blocked, and continuing wikihounding me from page to page.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the last post is not after you but asking something to the owner of this talk page that did something unexpected in mine. Iyow2 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted some duplicate warnings with the HBC Archive Indexerbot configs you have setup. I'm fixing these for you. The Indexerbot code snippet should only be placed in one place. In your situation I did left the code snippet in /Archive 1. --Kslotte (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the code snippet removal. --Kslotte (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit odd. Thanks for fixing it! PeterSymonds (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get this one Peter. Looking at the uploads he was making just before being blocked, he did identify where he was getting them from and filled out the required fields on the FUR. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here was uploading replaceable non-free files, the first batch I deleted. I sent the user an e-mail as it seemed more appropriate given some of the claims, explaining what the problems were, but they were reuploaded. The user then sent me an e-mail requesting clarification, explaining that some of them were owned outright, but this seemed highly improbable. But I gave a link to the OTRS e-mail address in case he wanted to declare them. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had at least a halfway decent understanding of our policies in this area but I'm still not sure I get where you are coming from here. They were album covers, were labeled as such, and seemed to have proper FURs. If he was claiming on the file description page that he owned the images I could see it, but they were clearly tagged as non-free album covers downloaded from IMDB. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, I'm just trying to see exactly how this is blockable. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was uploading album covers and claiming them as his own; I deleted them and sent an e-mail explaining why I deleted them and why he couldn't use them on that article (as fair-use album covers should really be limited to articles about the album or song). He then re-uploaded them with the same rationale for the same article. That prompted the block, as I've so far had no acknowledgement of my e-mail or the follow-up. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your patience with my thick head, I think I got you now. I've declined the unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTome · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3) (assign permissions)

I have been working on Wikipedia to revert vandalism for a while now, although I took a break recently because it was too time consuming. Now I find myself with more time, and would like to continue by using Huggle so I can clean things up faster. As I need rollback privileges to use Huggle, I would be really grateful if you could assign them to me. Thanks so much. WikiTome ^Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moot Already handled at WP: RFP/R. —Soap— 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]