User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 April

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rugby_666

Hi there, I was just after clarification on your statement on this page "Declined - No evidence of a community ban." I thought the point of a Checkuser request was to determine if someone was the same person or not, not whether they were blocked or not? Since nothing is mentioned about the identity of the editor in your response, could you clarify? -- Chuq 11:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We only utilize checkuser when doing so is justified. You claimed (by your use of a code letter) that one of the individuals involved was subject to a community ban which is one possible justification. If you use that justification, you must supply a link to the page where the community ban was enacted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet another RFCU question

Sorry to bug you when your talk page is full of these things. I'm confused about Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nkras though. Could you please comment there? — coelacan — 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for doing what you could. — coelacan — 04:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

using your office to harrass others?

I've been told about a family member's situation. Here's what I do know:

• You are being asked to run a check user on a another user who has not been disruptive or has done any vandalism.
• That user has engaged in some polite political discussion over an article but they involve only small aspects of the whole article.
• He has not been banned, but accused of being a puppet by the complainer. Nothing has been decided by the puppet board, whatever that is
• You should deny use of the check user because the puppet issue has not been resolved and because no disruption has occurred. In fact, it's the complainer and his group of 2 others that want to stamp out all discussion and use you as their mercenary to invade our family's privacy.A880M 05:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct your concerns to the relevant RFCU request page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan RfAr

I believe you inadvertently failed to record your vote regarding remedy paragraphs 11, 13, and 15. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

Hi UninvitedCompany. Out of curiousity, could you elaborate on your opposition to the concept of "article probation" which you mention here? I've thought about it for a little while, and I can't come up with any downsides to it, especially in this context, where articles are attracting people from outside of Wikipedia to squabble onwiki. I proposed the remedy on the workshop page quite aware of the fact that at least one of the users would end up banned, but I proposed it anyways because banning some of them isn't going to stop the arrival of others to argue for the causes which they all find important. However, I think that article probation will help contain the disruptive behavior of new arrivals, and eliminate the need to reopen the case in a few months. Comments welcome. Picaroon 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

declined RFCU

Procedurally speaking, should I amend a currently declined RFCU or should I write a new one? --Hamsacharya dan 06:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Arb

I made a statement here, if you wanted to review, [1] thanks. Artaxiad 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Melissa Guille

I've found a number of tickets, all similar, all from Melissa, so I have merged them all to 2007030310005499 for transparency. I hope this was right. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

History of sockpuppet debate

G'day, I saw your one user/one account post on the sockpuppet talk page. I presume this must have been debated previously somewhere at length, in any case I wondered how exhaustively (i.e. would raising it again be futile). The reason I say this is having read the page I really can't see any reason why someone needs two accounts except in very unusual circumstances. Has your proposal ended there? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lack of interest in the proposal. I would like to see it revived, because I believe that we waste too much time dealing with socks that we can't block because they aren't disruptive and we don't know whose socks they are. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the disruption is borderline or the sock is used to advocate or edit in ways the "named" editor is uncomfortable doing. Thatcher131 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I thought the debate that opened on the sockpuppet talk page was a start. It seems to me to be gaining in importance now as wikipedia seems to have reached a status in the past year or so where the standard of many articles (with referencing etc.) has improved greatly giving the whole show a much more polished/professional look/credibility. As well, the Essjay scandal has spotlighted the whole thing about credentials of editors, not whether they are or are not qualified as such but how they portray themselves. Thus, in a sense, if a sockpuppet is not explicitly identified as the author as such, a case could be argued that it is fraudulent (one is in essence proposing one is two different people, which is an untruth).

Having said all that, though there have been a few wikipedia stories in the press I read I get the feeling the whole saga has gone quietly in the popular press (I work in mental health so we're used to stories of fairly distressing events highlighting the problems with mental health services in Ausstralia disappearing of the public radar fairly rapidly rather tahn governments changing much....) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser on Otheus

Greetings again,

You rejected Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus on technical grounds, and Durova resubmitted the request under a different category, and I further second the request for you to perform the checkuser. The administrator who filed the request is falsely under the impression I personally attacked him and has not taken time to retract the accusation. The checkuser is an important step in regaining some level of credibility with that admin and his circle of wikifriends. I beg, please, because perform this checkuser. --Otheus 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Brian Peppers courtesy blanking

Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored.24.29.74.132 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not supposed to be YTMND. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking the AfD discussion "as a courtesy to the article's subject" doesn't seem very consistent with the official policy that Wikipedia is not censored.136.150.200.100 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This and related matters have been discussed on many occasions. I fully support the actions taken. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with sockpupettry

Hi UC, I need your help. REDVERS, one of the Administrators that is working with the Fellowship of Friends page, left me the following message:

Hi, Mario. On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute.

I wrote to REDVERS but he didn't reply to me. Do you know how can I find out who the sock pupeteers are based on this and this? Thanks a lot! Mario Fantoni 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Paul144

Hi. I ran across your block on User:Paul144's page while responding to a WP:Mediation Cabal request involving him. Please know that I have literally never had any contact with Paul144 (to the best of my knowledge, anyway).

It looks, to an outsider, like your block was a tad harsh and overzealous. There is nothing in WP:Blocking that provides for blocking a user who is editing in good faith, but there is a clause prohibiting the blocking of a user who is currently engaged in a content dispute with you (which is what it looks like to an outsider). While Paul144's sources may or may not have been valid, blocking him to prevent his continued involvement in the article's improvement probably wasn't an appropriate response.

This is just the opinion of a passer-by. I won't claim to have been involved in the dispute while it was going on. But I do think it's a shame that Paul's been blocked, especially for a full two days, under such circumstances. --Moralis (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in a content dispute. I am dealing with an WP:OTRS complaint of a WP:LIVING violation. WP:LIVING provides that page protection and blocks can and should be used where necessary for enforcement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]