As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been one of the main contributors to the article on August Ames and I recently noticed that one of the contributors, going by the handle of User:Winglebop Doodlepants had their edit summaries deleted and I could not see what they wrote. This, I assume, is because the edit summary contained some information that people on Wikipedia didn't want to appear on the history.
Based on the information that was not completely hidden from view, it seems to me that this user was adding accurate information that is publicly available in the form of Tweets. While I understand that we must reference everything that we put on Wikipedia, it is of note that what he said is publicly available and is completely accurate.
While I obviously can't say the same for the deleted edit summaries, because I can't see them, my suspicion is that that was factually accurate too.
I understand and agree with the decision to block this user for poor behaviour and for not adhering to guidelines, however, given that they appear to have been adding factually accurate, albeit unsourced, information, I think that an indefinite block is probably not warranted, and instead a shorter block would be more appropriate, perhaps of a week, or maybe even a month.
It seems to me that he came to Wikipedia with good intentions, to add accurate information, but didn't understand the need for sources, especially since anyone following the case closely, such as I have been, would know inherently that what he said was correct. It is, at least amongst people following the case, common knowledge, and he appeared to be quoting Tweets.
If you come with good intentions and find your accurate information treated as if it were abusive, I think most people would get upset.
This seems to me to be a bit of a misunderstanding, based on the perception of Wikipedia editors that the information added by this user was inaccurate, when in reality it was accurate.
I therefore do not believe that an indefinite block is warranted, and I think instead he should be given a shorter block and then, if he repeats the same kind of behaviour, it can be lengthened as appropriate. Going straight to an indefinite block seems to me to be a bit over the top.
Perhaps, with the new year coming up, a block that expires on perhaps 1st of January 2018 might be appropriate? Mister Sneeze A Lot ( talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So your name is generalizationsisbad, not a good name for you sir. Why then did you remove my change from David Irving's wiki? Calling someone a holocaust denier without any evidence is absolutely repulsive and a libelous generalization. There is no footnote that cites the exact evidence that he is, in fact, a holocaust denier. Therefore, it is null, libelous and must be removed. I have direct evidence in multiple cases that prove this term is misleading, libelous, and fundamentally wrong. It is nothing more than a smear word that has too far of an ambiguous definition for a top line on a Wikipedia page. If you would like I can provide you with direct evidence straight from the horse's mouth. David Irving talking about the facts of the holocaust at length in several different sources. Holocaust denial means that you do not believe the holocaust happened. David Irving, in fact, believes that the holocaust happened. Just like Hannah Arendt, he has a different opinion about it than you but that does not give you the justification to judge him wrongly. History will rebuke you for your transgressions against it. Noting him as a World war II historian in the first line is absolutely more appropriate, and if there are any discrepancies on what should and should not believed about his role in denying the holocaust should be decided by presenting evidence in later paragraphs of the page and not a simple biased and fundamentally wrong statement at the top of the page. This is not an opinion. It is absolute fact that David Irving does not deny the Holocaust. I cite Hitler's War and his many discussions on youtube on the topic of the Holocaust. Some of which he goes into in-depth detail about Sobibor Treblinka and Majdanek.
http_s://_youtu_.be/u9MckJcbs3w
Here is the first case, and probably the best, as the rest you will have to purchase to read. remove the underscores. blacklists mean nothing as wikipedia is not a credible source anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.2 ( talk) 19:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Would it be at all possible if I could ask you to block 2601:142:c100:1cfa:78da:ca55:36dc:7a3c ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's being used by the same vandal you recently blocked at 2601:142:C100:1CFA:78DA:CA55:36DC:7A3C ( talk · contribs · 2601:142:C100:1CFA:78DA:CA55:36DC:7A3C WHOIS)-- Mr Fink ( talk) 06:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll email you some info within the next day as there's some info I don't feel comfy sharing on wiki. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 06:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.
We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on en Wikipedia. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.
If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
would you be able to add husainid dynaty on List of Turkic dynasties and countries, he was assimilated into turks but of orginally greek
A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period', by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, page 173 states, "He was an indigenized "Turk" of Greek origins, who had a Tunisian mother. Sazz10( talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi GAB. I've discovered evidence of an extensive pattern of a registered user editing as multiple IPs while logged out and then logging in and representing themselves as a different person in order to create fake consensus. I'd take them to SPI if it weren't for this. So if CU can't be used to connect registered accounts to IPs, then what can be done in these sorts of situations? This editor isn't exactly going to fess up after engaging in such extensive subterfuge. Should I open an SPI and ask for a behavioral analysis? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick action against vandalism from 113.198.233.46, but did you see the note at the top of his talk page? 113.198.233.46 is a university IP where the university admins have requested short blocks + contacting them in the event of vandalism. Iwilsonp ( talk) 22:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
IP account 94.176.89.105 is from the same user as 94.177.76.53 and 94.177.75.219. Apparently a persistent block evader, simply hopping from IP to IP. Can you deal with that one? Regards, Akocsg ( talk) 16:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas GeneralizationsAreBad!!
Hi GeneralizationsAreBad, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia!
,
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello GeneralizationsAreBad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! | |
Wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018! – GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Admin! You said, " the next time you need to file an SPI, please just follow the directions… Otherwise, it just creates more work for the SPI team." It says, "The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected."
However, each time the user made his wiki account, he only seems to be creating only his userpage. Even he links facebook, twitter and may be personal blogs, he might thinks that the wiki is also a social media to have some personal info to be shared. If he is only editing his userpage, nowadays seems to be only one edit per page, is this still necessary to mention that edit? Isn't this enough to mention his similar birth-details in each userpage?
Is this necessary to check someone from tools if he is visibly sock, like SPI says, "A request for CheckUser can be helpful when abuse is likely but the visible public evidence alone is insufficient to show the underlying situation clearly." Further, it says that in these cases, do not request CheckUser:
Please guide, Thanks! M. Billoo 04:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi GAB. As soon as your two week block expired, HaizadSys ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again at Fazura ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Best of the Season to you by the way. Dr. K. 04:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 01:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).
On further investigation, this needs to be merged with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018/Archive. I may have a couple to add. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Saw [2]. You may want to compare [3]. If so, maybe add to the list? (I think I saw the other account you may have had in mind also) I see a familiar pattern. And, there will be more. Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Tito Dutta ( talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you know who the master of this account is? It seems there is history here. Either way, their sandbox is G5 worthy. Home Lander ( talk) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello there! I would like to create a new account, but last time I did so it got permanently banned and this account got a temporary block for sockpuppeting. I appealed the decision, explaining that I would not be using this account again, but the appeal was rejected and so I suppose I'm stuck with this one for now. Do you know how I'd be able to go about creating a new account? Qwertyuiop1994 ( talk) 11:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I have question about the naming conventions for SPI case pages, and this case in particular. The listed master account is actually unrelated, and the names of all the accounts that are linked to each other are references to racist meme that I'd rather not give visibility to if I can help it. What do you make of it? Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello again,
The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on English Wikipedia and is in the final days. Also there is a global discussion about the same topic on meta.
We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. There is still time to share your ideas.
If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there
I'm getting in touch because you're a clerk for sockpuppet investigations.
I am new to Wikipedia (since December 2017) and didn't realise until today that the guidelines were to have only one account. I have kept more than one so that I could keep different projects clear in my head and to keep separate watchlists (although these started to overlap). When someone suspected I was using more than one account (because I was), they said I was a 'sockpuppet', which I had to look up.
Now that I know better, I am only using this account. My query is that, since I have three accounts, how can I be open about this? Or can I shut the other two down? The intention hasn't been a deceitful one, but I'd like to clear it up.
Any advice much appreciated!
Fugitivedave ( talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
SPI already filed, there is zero chance this guy has only been around since December, I busted him and now he's hoping to cover his arse Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I really have only been here since December! I'll wait to be contacted, then. It's a shame it's come to this but I'll do what I'm asked. Fugitivedave ( talk) 22:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. How do I do that? Sorry, I don't know where to find that page. Fugitivedave ( talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)