User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Deletion

So what it's still not meant to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco747 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific please? Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto Placik

Could you please clarify in your finding whether WP:SHARE pertains? From the link you gave it appears that it does.LeadSongDog come howl 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but I don't feel comfortable blocking the accounts as sockpuppets when they're not really sockpuppets. I'd prefer the style of editing to be addressed elsewhere. That also seems to be the opinion of Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), who reduced the block on the IP they were using. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Do we have/need a separate noticeboard for meatpuppetry, or am I missing something?LeadSongDog come howl 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, but given the explanation on my talk page, I think it's appropriate to treat these as different people. As such, I will not be blocking the latest user, but will keep an eye on the situation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I just realized that I forked a discussion here on your talk page. Feel free to refactor if it suits you. Thanks for looking into it, and for taking the watch.LeadSongDog come howl 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no worries. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Being new to this concept of editing, I think it would be fair to assume that people can make mistakes when learning an entirely new language. I have read the definitions of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I would like to contest the allegations of these levied by user:Leadsongdog. Unlike your user name which protects your identity. I am using my name. So is Sarah Johnson. If you desire you can go to my website (but if I mention it here, you may accuse me of promotion and links so you can look it up if you really want to know the truth rather than make assumptions) and see my pictures and those of staff members including Sarah Johnson who is a real person. Emily Miller is a part time summer volunteer (therefore not in the photos as an employee) who shares the same computer as Sarah. I am a one physician practice who does not have unlimited resources and some of my staff share computers. My practice corporate name is Associated Plastic Surgeons S.C.(I use to have a partner that retired explainging the plural). That is why the IP address is registered to Associated Plastic Surgeons, S.C. It is a corporate name and not a true association as you have suggested in your evidence. Is there something wrong with using the same IP address by different people in the same office? Please go to my talk page if you have additional questions or concerns and I would be happy to address your complaints. It would seem more forthright and easier for me to address. Thank you Otto Placik (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra work.

I'm new to sockpuppet reporting so I apoligize if it caused you more work. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. We all have to start somewhere. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another main page/commons replacement

Hey can you grab File:Bruce_castle_1.jpg which I have uploaded as a temp local copy here and upload it as a new version of the same name at commons using {{RetouchedPicture|Edit to correct perspective distortion and recrop|editor=Mfield}}. Otherwise I'll probably forget once it comes of the main page and the temp one gets deleted. Thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, wikidown prevented my earlier answer, and I forgot afterwards. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Peter

The reason why I'm contacting you is because I have started a soc puppet investigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy#Report_date_July_2_2009.2C_20:06_.28UTC.29

A while back I started one and I don't think it was ever checked by anyone, maybe I did something wrong, but I don't care about that anymore, I just want to make sure that an administrator takes a look at this new one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The bots have been buggy lately, causing a bit of project confusion. It will be dealt with soon. Sorry for the delay. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor assistance

Dear PeterSymonds, I found your name at the Editor Assistance page, and I wonder if you can help with a dispute going on at The Hardy Boys. The article was recently featured on the main page, and has since attracted editors who have been making changes that they believe correct the "bias" of the article towards homosexual-loving academics. I have been trying to dialogue with them, not very well probably, because I got annoyed, and it just doesn't seem to be working. I would greatly appreciate any advice, and I understand that it may go against me. I just want help. Thank you, Ricardiana (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look later this evening. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very grateful - thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page move

Can you please move Trans Saharan gas pipeline to Trans-Saharan gas pipeline (with a hyphen)? I ask here because the article is on the front page and this error needs immediate attention. Thanks. —Noisalt (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. —Noisalt (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thank you. [1] I'm sincerely sorry for the uproar. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

I have stated it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tngah, Thanks.

Sorry

Hi. Sorry if i have done something wrong here on Wikipedia. I was actually totally unaware of the sockpuppet rule..etc etc.. I hope the Wikipedia will consider the fact that 99% of my edits have been in favour and good faith of Wikipedia and helpful for the project in general. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. That's what I hoped to hear. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Overlooked SPI block?

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555. I noticed you tagged User:Michael93555 as a puppetmaster, but it looks like he isn't blocked. Also, should the permissions like rollback and AWB be revoked? Shubinator (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Yes, it was an oversight on my part. Account blocked and additional rights removed. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm, you forgot to block me. Can you block me now.--Michael Zinke (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, done. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a block on 95.154.214.4 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)? Proxy that Michael's using, you can block for vandalism if you wish. He also used 95.154.214.12 earlier today; maybe we can do a rangeblock for the long run. Shubinator (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard-rangeblocked for 1 month. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. He had just gone to 95.154.214.14. I'll come back if he switches completely. Thanks again! Shubinator (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to let you all know that I work for Microsoft Corporation. I have access to servers all over the world. Think of all of the people you have block that don’t need to be block because of me. I will make a new Username and continue to edit this website just because you don’t want me on this site. There are some ip address that you can not range-block. Like this one. If you do range-block this ip address you will be blocking hundred and thousands of people. This is not recommended. You have a great day--71.105.185.96 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • one wonders whether it would be worth contacting Microsoft to let them know an employee is abusing both their servers and the TOS of a major website. → ROUX ₪ 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe him about the Microsoft part. Michael, can you give us evidence you work for Microsoft? (He's also claimed to be a Myspace administrator, but I don't think they exist.) Shubinator (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm very curious why Microsoft would use a DSL connection. Shubinator (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"I’m Michael. During my 5 years at Microsoft I’ve always worked on Microsoft® Windows®. Currently I lead a team that’s building a version of Windows for small devices, like cash registers, PocketPCs, and set-top boxes. The work I do at Microsoft affects everyone I know. Solving difficult problems is always a lot of fun. Unlike school, there are no right answers. You’re defining both the questions and the answers.--71.105.185.96 (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but anyone could say that. I still don't believe you. How about a Microsoft site where you're listed as an employee? Shubinator (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How interesting that I found a Microsoft site with almost the exact same wording. You sure you work at Microsoft? Shubinator (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Synchronism Is feeding me. I just want to tell them. "If you leave me alone. I will leave them alone. I think this is fair"--71.105.185.96 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sockpuppet action

You wrote: "The diffs provided show a very similar connection to Shaheenjim. As such, I have blocked and tagged the sock. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you very much for the action! Terry0051 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Query on recent Sockpuppet block

Hi there. I'm just curious about [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Maiden_City this sockpuppet block]]. I don't see on there the evidence to support these two editors being one and the same. Maybe it's just me, but they had completely different editing styles and MOs. One was obsessed with changing references to Derry to read Londonerry, the other completely different. Just wanting to ask why you believe them to be the same user. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider the articles "totally different", they were in the same general area. As the first sockpuppet report focused on the IP and account editing the same small set of articles, I do not believe that branching out to new articles in the same area lends to a presumption of innocence, it is equally an attempt to avoid being spotted straight away do you not agree? The soapboxing about Martin McGuinness was present as The Maiden City, as was soapboxing about numerous other things. While initially The Maiden City was exclusively focused on the Derry/L'derry dispute, post unblocking this broadened out to various contentious Troubles related edits, very similar to De Unionist's. Lending weight to the idea that they are one and the same is this edit by The Maiden City's static IP, the first in over a month and happening under a day after the block, convenient timing don't you think? There are other behavioural factors which I did not list on the recent sockpuppet report, as I believe it will be easier to identify his inevitable next sockpuppet if I did not post everything that made me suspect the last sockpuppet. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was going solely by the evidence and contributions, which looked strong enough to block. Nevertheless, if the archiving clerk disagrees, we'll bump it up to checkuser attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
You're doing a great job. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tid-bit

Being the curious sort, I had to go back to the beginning history of my talk page - looking for the very first person to ever come to my page and offer me help, guidance, and encouragement. Hmmm ... seems that first post (other than my own) would be this one. Must be a very nice fella to come help a complete n00bie like that. If you ever see that editor around the 'pedia Peter, make sure you pass along my thanks to him, and let him know that I've tried to follow in his footsteps as well. ;). — Ched :  ?  14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Looks like you've come a long way since! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November

Frei Hans removed your decline of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November, on the grounds that he hadn't yet finished providing evidence.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; someone else declined it too. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

But do you have Huggle set up? If so, how would one set it up on a Macbook? Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've only used Huggle about 4 times, and on a Windows PC too. I suppose you could ask at WT:HUGGLE. Sorry I can't be much help. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Huggle/Wine should help! Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried that, and it made me pull my hair out with a trout. (don't ask how)Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for blocking Suiteman he was getting us on our nerves we had to revert his edits lots of times.Wheeloffortune26 (talk -- 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
On that, I fear that a new sock has already appeared.
  • 15:21, 7 July 2009 - User:Suiteman is blocked.
  • 15:52, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy is created.
  • 16:04, 7 July 2009 - Suiteman changed his talk page.[2] I reverted and added a sockpuppet notice
  • 16:14, 7 July 2009 - He again reverts
  • 16:18, 7 July 2009 - Administrator changed block settings to prevent editor from editing his own talk page
  • 16:26, 7 July 2009 - User:Extremeguy edits FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman, adding some uncited information. He then proceeds to edit the same group of articles that Suiteman had edited. Edit summaries use the same terminology and spelling used by Suiteman. eg "no proof"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9], "dealte" instead of "delete"[10][11][12][13]
  • I also expect this editor be active at the same times as Suiteman was.
There's clearly a pattern emerging here but I'm not sure if it's strong enough at this point. How do I report this user when there is? Do I open another case or a subpage under the existing case? Help would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks suspicious. Feel free to reopen the SPI case if the evidence gets stronger. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Juliancolton has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

–Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. :) It came in good timing too; I had a cookie earlier and my friend ate it. It was a terrible blow... PeterSymonds (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Standing But Not Operating

Hi there! Could you do me a favor, and dig the content from Standing But Not Operating out of wherever-it-is that deleted pages go to, and copy it to User:DragonHawk/Temp4? I'd like to see if I can merge the content into Amusement ride. Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Best regards, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks again! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Marco747/User:Palen647

Thanks for reseting the block to deny email on these two accounts. I take it you were getting interesting email from him, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yes. No problem. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Truthseekerx

Thank you for your intervention with a disruptive sock puppeteer. I suspect from the angry outburst on his talk page he hasn't got the message, see [14]. Do you think I should raise a WQA? Regards, Justin talk 09:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, but WQA can wait until he's unblocked. If he continues to use his talk page non-constructively, I can lock it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IP Block Request

Where in the world does one ask for this permission? I have found no discernible link at which this can be done. Thanks ahead of time for any help. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The e-mail isn't currently operational to my knowledge as I sent it out and it was bounced back. Can you help me there? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Top Selling Musical Artists of all time -

The country music group Alabama has sold 73 million albums to date, but they are not listed on the chart. Will you update that when you get a chance? In the meantime, I'll try to do it if I can figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan1998 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid at it Again :(

Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid is at it again. He was previously reprimanded under the Satanoid account for a WPOuting violation here. Now he is at it again. He is also being very abusive, as you can see. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, is fellow Morbid Fairy/Satanoid? He uses similar abuse in logs. Cheers --Sikh-History 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it. Blocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I forgot about this account too. It got blocked because of the obscene name. Cheers --Sikh-History 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Vineyard Vines

Will you unprotect Vineyard Vines so I can create an entry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxman2013 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please first create the article in your userspace (eg. User:Laxman2013/Vineyard Vines); if you're able to satisfy notability requirements and verification standards, the page can be unprotected to allow for recreation. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Marek69is sockpuppet of user:Historian19

Peter! Thanks for your help!

I have evidence that Marek69 is sockpuppet of user:Historian19

Can you start Checkuser asap!

The Inquisador (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No evidence = no checkuser, as I explained. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified Reverting of Articles

User:Juntin_A_Kuntz is continuing to revert all my edits to various articles without outlining appropriately as to why he does so. I tried to open a discussion with him in his User Talk page with regards to these unwarranted reversions but instead of responding in good faith; he deleted the entire section. Currently I am trying to engage him in the discussion page of article Pashtunistan, see [15] where he continues to evade my requests for clarification on reverting of specific edits. Please deal with this issue; I have tried my best now to act in good faith but I feel I am being unfairly targeted by User:Justin_A_Kuntz. ThanksTruthseekerx (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case: Morbid Fairy is NOT Gurbinder Singh1

You banned user:Morbid Fairy for being user:Gurbinder Singh1 ?

First of all please prove using Wikipedia IP chechuser tools that I am that user, you have not done so and yet you have banned me.(Morbid Fairy)

Secondly I explained before that I was user:Satanoid to both users Sikh-history and Sinneed, so that's hardly a conspiracy as they are making it out to be. I did this since I changed computers, I will add that Both users have had warnings from other admins and editors for using Wikipedia as a platform for radicalising articles especially Sikh Extremism, ISYF and Dabinderjit Singh. (See archived talk pages on Sikh Extremism) You can do this by analysing the history of those articles.

I hope you will at least take the opportunity to use the relevant tools to investiagte the accusations that I am Gurbinder Singh1 as a matter of fairness. You will come to the conclusion both users are different.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.193 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the block summary fully. You were blocked for disruptive editing and continued edit warring, and I thought it was worth noting that there was a case for possible sockpuppetry. However, that was not the reason for your block. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Peter, I'm sorry to say that you decided to take an absolute one sided view of the argument without listening to the other side or at least investigating anything at all- From your response I assume you no longer accept I am who you were led to beleive ? ie Gurbinder Singh1?
The point I am making here is that there is VERY selective editing by removing important information which I will point out.
Could you please kindly take a look at this revert,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Bolan&diff=301201592&oldid=293390154
Now, regading the Canadian award winning journalist, Kim Bolan who has had multiple death threats against her by Sikh Extremists, here you see a typical revert by Sinneed where he deleted many positive yet truthful aspects about herself (such as being an award winning journalist), surely this makes wikipedia a poor source just because a few extremists come together and lobby a poor admin who is unfamiliar with the subject matter combined with the fact that there will those who are intent on using wikipedia as a tool to propagate their own views.
This is typical of many 'selective edits' where relevant information has been deleted
- I will point out later, a list of these edits if you require
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.193 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gurbinder singh1

I have read the section on defending against claims. It says Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.

As you can see Sinneed is assunimg bad faith as usual so...

I'd like to know the progress of this "investigation"

1) Has it started ? 2) Is there any evidence both users are the same ? 3) Will I get a reply Re: the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.193 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

?

Hey why did you delete my sock puppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinéma C and Athenean false claims and possible sock puppet users themselves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)).

Per SPI's manual of style, the suspected sockpuppeteer should be listed on the subpage, so it was moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinéma C. It was also promptly closed per the CU results already carried out. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was looked into as thoroughly as it should have been. Why else would the other two users open two cases against me which were subsequently proved erroneous. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)).

SPI clerk trainee

SPI seems like kind of an interesting area, so I've looked over the general process and clerk tasks to get a feel. I might not become the most active participant there, but I'm interested in becoming a clerk trainee. :-) Thanks, Jamie☆S93 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great. The bot now recognises you as a clerk, so it's really just a case of using common sense. Some of the most obvious indicators are editing patterns (style of writing, edit summary patterns, small details like that). The IRC channel can generate reports comparing two or more editors which may also be helpful. Feel free to ping me or pop into #wikipedia-en-spi for assistance. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Good, thanks! I've seen sockpuppet evidence before, but I'm still observing it closer and waiting for an opportunity to complete a "pending closure" case. It looks like there are currently 2, although I'm a bit confused. After briefly looking over a case, do you post {{SPIclose|archive}} and wait for another clerk to actually archive it? There seems to be two separate steps after {{SPIclose}} being placed on a case; adding {{SPIclose|archive}}, and somebody to finally archive it. JamieS93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I think I got it. The SPIclose|archive is placed (by a clerk) on a case page that has been handled/possibly declined by others, and the bot automatically archives it soon thereafter. A bit of contribs stalking helped. ;) JamieS93 Only You Can Prevent Drama 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for all of your help! I know that I had written a long request and I thank you for taking the time to actually read it and try to help me. (Even if you did put the unblock checkmark on my talk page but forgot to actually unblock me. LOL. I tried to smile at you, learned the code, came back here, typed this all out in Word, went to leave you a message, and was still blocked. Ha ha!!)

PeterSymonds, Zulualpha has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Zulualpha (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to unblock you? Oops, sorry! :) Thanks for the smile! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jean Hugo

I was wondering if there is a particular reason why Jean Hugo (golfer) was selected to be the main Jean Hugo. Judging by the number of links to Jean Hugo, Jean Hugo (artist), and Jean Hugo (golfer), it would seem that the artist is (could be) more notable? Certainly that's the first one that comes up in my last Google search. Also, it appears there is a Jean Hugo (musician) who plays violin, but has no page yet. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I had no idea who either were; I chose one from the top of the list. I can study the links in more detail and cross the moves. I'll do some research about this third one and see if I can write an article or something. Then the disambig can be restored I suppose. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

I'd appreciate any tips you can give me about loading images that won't be deleted. I have full permission from the subject to use that image, and cannot understand why you decided to delete it. I'm not saying I disagree, please understand. I'm just trying to learn how to do it right and I appreciate any help you can offer. SportsReport.

The image was only eligible for use on Wikipedia (ie. non-commercial use). This is not allowed, as the license is too restrictive. If the copyright holder wishes to upload under a free license, they are free to do so. Unfortunately the license "for Wikipedia only" is not allowed. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Peter. :) I once asked Synergy (talk · contribs) whether they were willing to train me as a clerk, but they replied that they are taking a break from training. As you are a clerk as well, would you be willing to train me? :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 22:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aitias. :) Thanks for your interest. Right now I'm training three people already, and informally coaching another two. As such, I'm a bit stretched for places. When some of the trainees move up to full clerk status, a place might be available. Sorry to turn you away, but if I take any more people on, I'll have far too many. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem; many thanks anyway. :) I'll try asking OhanaUnited (talk · contribs); perhaps he can train another trainee. Thanks again, — Aitias // discussion 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Grandma Dottie

While I put this case under that name, it was never my intention to somehow state this account was the puppetmaster if older accounts were shown to be involved. Accordingly, I think User:ThreeE should be appropriately labeled as the puppetmaster and not Dottie. This isn't his first block for this either. — BQZip01 — talk 03:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oj, and BTW: Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I thought of moving it but figured it didn't really matter. I'll move them over later today. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, I've never actually seen anything in writing anywhere that defined which account was the master and which the puppet. Is it always the account with the oldest first edit? Or the oldest created account? Or the one with the most edits? Or a combination? Or something completely different?--Aervanath (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The master account tends to be the first account of the sockpuppet bunch. So, for example, if User:Example1 was created on 1 July, gets blocked on 2 July, and starts creating socks on the 3 July, Example1 would be the master account and the others would be sockpuppets. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Is that something I could have found written down anywhere, or is it just unwritten common practice?--Aervanath (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
After shopping around, I'd say it was unwritten common practice. There might be something. I'll work it into the written stuff when I get some time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

List of delta encoding software

I am interesting in article "List of delta encoding software" deleted by you.

May be someone interesting in that too and you will undelete article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.145.56 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was just an indiscriminate list with no article text. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links to these sites. As such, I won't undelete it, because it had no context. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Remember me? Probably not, I used to be known as SimpsonsFan08?? Still no? Well, anyway, if you do: hi ConnorJack (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Duology

Hi - i see you've moved the film series with two entries to duology. without commenting on the quality of the article, which i personally believe shouldn't even be there, duology is not a dictionary defined word. i think that using a non-controversial, neutral term should be adopted in this case, and although some people are suggesting "dilogy" which means something completely different, it's unlikely a consensus will be reached. PS. didn't think you were allowed to move articles nominated for deletion... Robsinden (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to move it pending a full discussion about it. I don't really care about the title itself, I'm just an uninvolved person. :) Sure, you can move articles nominated for deletion; it happens all the time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
PeterSymonds is correct; see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusation again

Hi i have been accused of sockpuppetry again, By some editor. I think it is unfair to be blamed everytime something similar happeneds. Especially since i am one of the few to actually admit to it and being fair, and i would admit to it again had i done it.Please take a look at it my friend. The editor who is accused also seems to be a good editor in general and seems to have good faith when doing a edit to any article so i dont see any reason for him/her to be blocked. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Natcoll

"Similar username, same edits, same articles" ... and a two and a half year gap between edits? --Stephen 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's sockpuppetry; there was another user in between those users who is obviously related (User:Academic Manager). You are free to use your judgement to unblock, but on the three accounts he's used, he's made the same type of edits on all three accounts, and the fact that the link is strongly denied is suspicious. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On redeeming ones self and re-earning rollback

Hey there.

You may or may not remember this, but you took my rollback rights after I used them in a content dispute a little under a year ago. I like to think I've improved as an editor since then. Anyway, I've taken up vandal fighting, mostly with Twinkle, but I would like to either regain my rollback rights or at least work towards that end. Since you're the admin who initially took them, I figured you were the guy to talk to in the first place.

Of course, I see that you no longer categorize yourself as an admin who does rollback rights. So if you're no longer in that business, if you could point me towards someone who can deal with this, that'd be cool. Thanks. McJEFF (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good to see you back. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Already? Wow, thanks! McJEFF (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I can remove it and wait longer if you'd like. :P You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Hi there PeterSymonds! I have a question regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orsahnses. Is there a particular reason why User:DCrhD didn't get blocked? I'm just wondering cause all the other suspected sock puppet accounts got blocked except this one. Thanks for your time. Elockid (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An oversight on my part, apologies. Blocked and tagged. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dope Stars Inc.

What reason/right did you have for deleting a band (Dope Stars Inc.) that is very famous in Italy and is officially set to tour in North America in 2010? User:NineInchNailed 18:45, 24 July 2009

It seems that I did not delete it, but it was deleted per a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dope Stars Inc.. After it was repeatedly recreated, an administrator protected it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Domnam = MRDU08

Thanks for that. I blocked some obvious sockpuppets of MRDU08 myself, but I like to get a second opinion on the WP:DUCK accounts... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Question

Hi there again, I don't really know where this should be reported or who to turn to on this matter, could you help? Following a suggestion that somebody posted on the Orsahnses sock case, I looked into the history of the sock target articles and I think I found something interesting. Two different sock cases appear to be very similar and I think that they involve the same person due to similar edit summaries and the articles in which the socks edited in.

Do you think you could take a look into it or tell me who to turn to for this. I'm just wondering. Again, thanks. Elockid (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as both have been archived, I don't think it's necessary to merge them at this stage. Unless either case gets reopened, I think it's best to keep them as they are. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed block evasion by Chidel

With regard to this block evasion case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive, does the associated sockpuppet account, User:Gogsynetcord, receive a block? Cheers —Teahot (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You blocked a user based on absolutely no evidence at all, I would strongly advise you look over this case again. Mark7144 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by Darko Trifunovic

As the blocking admin in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42#Darko Trifunovic, I thought you should know that he is back as a newly created sockpuppet, Arthur999 (talk · contribs). I have raised the issue at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunovic returns. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite got it; I tagged it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gogsy

I think you could be mistaken about Gogsy's sock case - Chidel argued on that talk page passionately against including the fansite, why would he create a duplicate account to vote for the fansite's inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7144 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another user and I have also expressed concern about the thin and inconsistent pattern evidence in this case. Please send it to checkuser. Milo 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I second this, the case must be re-opened. Mark7144 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll give due consideration to any unblock request from the user(s). I have watched their talk pages. There is no need to reopen the case. Even if the user is not Chidel, I would like to be that the previous account this person has used is not blocked before considering unblocking them (the account linked was non-existent). PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The account does exist, Netcord (talk · contribs) is a user created in 2006. I think the clear way forward is to re-open this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chidel/Archive Mark7144 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing the evidence again has left a doubt in my mind. I still have my suspicions about the account, but there is conflicting evidence here. As such, I've unblocked Gogsydotnet, but I'll keep an eye on the account's activities. Either way, reopening the case is rather unnecessary at this point. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Isabella Woo

Peter, this user whom you have indefblocked for outing editors is appealing her block. She is doing so on the basis that the information she has inserted has already appeared in wikipedia in an ArbCom discussion, which certainly appears to be the case. I concede, obviously, that not every editor looks at ArbCom pages, but they can if they wish; can she be accused of outing just for repeating in articlespace what has already been printed in ArbCom files? I honestly do not know the answer to this question. Do you? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So it is. I had a quick look through the arbitration case, but didn't see this. I didn't look in great detail because the account seemed to have a single purpose, but I suppose unblocking might be appropriate...perhaps if they stop with the posts? I'm quite unsure after reading through the ArbCom case in full, but we can trial an unblock if they mean to contribute constructively. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

PeterSymonds, Vale maio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your help and your stand (or standing?) for my terrible english :) --Vale maio (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Minored/Astrochemist

I think Astrochemist is the primary account. This is very sad as Astrochemist has been an excellent contributor. As admins who abusively sockpuppet only have their sock accounts blocked and not their primary accounts, could I ask that the same consideration be given to a non-admin? DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that Astrochemist is clearly the principal account, as it is longer established and has made many more edits. I think the blocks should at least be changed so that Astrochemist is the one which will be unblocked automatically in a week. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The archive of the case says the master was blocked for a week - in fact the block is for over a month [16]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was before the cases were changed around. See [17]; I just forgot to update the second account. I'll fix that now. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azviz

I apologise for mistakenly undoing your strike out along with another user's. I had in fact realised my mistake and received an edit conflict when I tried to correct it, as you had beaten me to it. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no prob. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:IslamForEver1

Hello. thanks for banning those sock puppets of User:IslamForEver1. However, this sockpuppeteer keeps on making more new accouns, and restores his material on the Ahmed Deedat-article. Currently as User:Fedahia. Can anything be done to stop this guy?Jeff5102 (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks!Jeff5102 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RTV query

Hello
I had a query for an editor (User:Snillet) who put something in about 18 months ago; when I went to their talk page it was redlinked, as they had vanished. Is that the end of the story, or should I post there anyway, on the off-chance they are still watching? I don't want to re-create the page if I'm not supposed to... (I've not come across this before!) Xyl 54 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish basically means they are totally vanished from Wikipedia. As such, it would be best not to bother, as it's unlikely to get responded to. If their email is enabled, you can always shoot them a mail. Don't be too hopeful for a response though. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh! OK, thanks Xyl 54 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Hi there, I saw that you had volunteered as a editor willing to assist in a dispute. The Glenn Beck page is currently edit warring over what things can or can't be referenced. Can you help resolve this dispute? Thank you for your help.--The lorax (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like discussion is in progress. I would hate to lock it down if the warring has stopped. I've watchlisted the page however, so I'll take action if needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Lyle123.

User:Bahopwet. Please block and prevent account creation. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-30t09:57z

Theresa Knott got it; I tagged it though. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Celebration (Madonna song)

Hi Peter. I believe you can drop down the protection to semi. The disputes have been resolved and the unconfirmed images have been listed for speedy delete. --Legolas (talk2me) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for this. I seem to always forget to remove the extra "=". I will be try to be more careful in the future. :) →javért stargaze 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, that's alright. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeterSymonds/Archive_20&oldid=1190253870"