User talk:Werieth/201407

Royal Australian Navy

Hello, is there anyway you might be able to better expand on why my progressive edits on the RAN page were reverted? Your assistance in cmpleting the section would be helpful! Please continue this conversation at an already existing one here: :(Conversation is continued at User talk:Nford24#Re: ADF Ranks). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why'd they ban you?

I can't possibly see the reason why you were banned? You were an excellent and fair editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 July 2014

Samsamcat It's very clear why they banned this user Block evasion: User:Betacommand. Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

With absolutely zero technical evidence. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. An investigation was opened, it was researched, and it was closed. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There was actually several investigations regarding this and someone just decided to block cause it was easier at that point. I'm surprised to be referred to WP:STICK when this is literally my first comment on this, maybe know the background of a persons invovlement before you pop off at the mouth. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: That wasn't for you specifically, that was for everybody regarding this topic. I know there have been more than a handful of investigations, I've followed a lot of them. I wasn't meaning to be incivil, and I apologize that I came off that way, but this argument has gone on for so long and it's wearing on my sanity. I don't know why I still have this talk page watched, honestly; if it was unwatched like it should've been I could've avoided this debacle with you. I didn't mean to "pop off at the mouth", but you think Kww closed it because it was easier? Why do you think that was the reasoning? I thought it was because of the edit warring, initially. I see that it's due to the sockpuppet investigation now. And again, I apologize for the WP:STICK note, it wasn't aimed at you, just this entire debacle. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Samsamcat, I don't know if you have followed what has been going on. In 2011-2012, there was a long discussion which lasted for three months which had the outcome that User:Betacommand was banned, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. Some users have occasionally expressed opinions that the account Werieth belongs to User:Betacommand, most recently at WP:ANI#Request topic ban for Andy Dingley. In the most recent discussion, it was decided that the evidence was sufficient to make a connection between the account Werieth and User:Betacommand. Since User:Betacommand remains banned to date, the account Werieth was blocked for ban evasion. I hope that this short summary helps you understanding why the user was blocked. If not, you may find useful information on the pages I linked to. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we should assume good faith. We should not block user for block evasion without any evidence if it doesn't vandalize Wikipedia. However anyway he does abused one sockpuppet.--GZWDer (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    • According to WP:BE, evading a block is a blockable offense itself. I assume that's why they chose to block. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But why is it a block evasion? It is not an obvious duck.--GZWDer (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)That's a valid point, but as far as I'm personally concerned, that's not something I can answer as I didn't make the decision. It was determined that he was evading a block. Evidently, CheckUser was used, and CheckUser is pretty reliable. I'm just trying to tell you why I think he was blocked. I apologize that I can't be of more help. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
          • So I think the reason of block should be changed to "Abusing multiple accounts: User:Smokestack Basilisk". It's too early to accuse him of evading a block until Checkuser evidence found that he is the same as Betacommand.--GZWDer (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Talk to Kww, I suppose. I can't imagine he'll be too fond of this being brought back up, though. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
              • GZWDer, please read the above linked section at AN, there are plenty of DUCK evidences, notably that account Werieth created on Commons the day Betacommand was banned and the fact he arrived in en.wp exactly three months later when a checkuser with Betacommand had become tecnically impossible, their common use of automated/semi-automated unauthorized bots in their edits, both active in the same limited areas of interests (removal of NFC images, cleanup of whitelists and blacklists), same attitude towards other editors, identical writing style (eg skipping apostrophes, but a lot of similarities if you care to investigate a bit about Betacommand/Delta), same average daily editing pace, same sleep cycle (both editing/stopping their edits at the same hours), and icing on the cake both editors sharing an uncommon interest on articles related to learning management systems. Frankly, it is not even a question of similarities, I can't see differences between the two. I have no idea which is your definition of "an obvious duck" but in our ordinary world this is a book case of sockpuppertry, and your edit here is higly questionable, as actually Werieth was blocked as a sock of Betacommand and for no other reasons (as evidences of further sockpuppertry emerged after the ban). Cavarrone 19:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Corvoe Sadly when you accuse someone of popping off at the month you are at that point also popping off at the mouth. I was irritated and tired when I did my own popping so we are good thanks for the explanation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: No hard feelings, I was in the same state of mind. Glad to hear it! Corvoe (speak to me) 22:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If there're ample duck evidence, why not block he immediately when Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive#16 March 2013 filed? Note I DOES found some evidence that Werieth should be Betacommand, such as [1] is apperently copied from m:User:Werieth/common.css. However, I can not confirm that Werieth is not a user which is not related to Betacommand but edits in the same behavior as Betacommand on purpose. I still want to defend Werieth and Betacommand before Checkuser evidence provided. By the way, there're nearly 4 months between 21:04, 5 February 2012 and 03:01, 4 June 2012.--GZWDer (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Interisting finding this one! The main problem with that sock investigation was that the most part of the above evidence was NOT mentioned there, and the opener almost merely asked a CU between the two editors, a CU rejected as tecnically impossible being Betacommand a too old account (an account goes stale after three months). The opener was probably too hasty, and failed to present the whole picture in a context of evidence. If all the above evidence would had been presented a duck block would had inevitably been set. It is not the first time that a sock is blocked after having survived to one and more accusations/investigations, as you yourself have above demonstrated evidence jump out gradually, and I myself was far from being sure he was a Betacommand's sock before seeing the whole picture dispayed at ANI. Cavarrone 10:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlie Huston - Already Dead.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Huston - Already Dead.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)