| Revision as of 12:29, 25 April 2015 editDoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,865 edits Reverted to revision 659097762 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): Rv sock. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:39, 26 April 2015 edit undoMichael Glass (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,667 edits →The latest DeFacto sock case: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely ''in camera'', to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. '''Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to {{nospam|arbcom-en-b|lists.wikimedia.org}} by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close.''' For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC) | You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely ''in camera'', to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. '''Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to {{nospam|arbcom-en-b|lists.wikimedia.org}} by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close.''' For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == The latest DeFacto sock case == | |||
| Nothing seems to have happened at for the last three weeks. Is there a problem that needs to be addressed? ] (]) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:39, 26 April 2015
 | Welcome to my talk page.
|
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
ZORDANLIGHTER or Someone Else
Sorry for mentioning the same subject . I am getting tired of this . Can you put all of them together in that page where you mentioned These two, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master. --CosmicEmperor (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
- It will take some time - I am away from my computer for a while. —DoRD (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Two more suspects: User:AHLM13 and User:115ash. Almost a tag team, very identical existence. Latched on to same people and subjects. Can be from a different master. Please, advise. Aditya 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- If there is credible evidence that either or both of them are socking, the matter will need to be raised in a separate SPI case. —DoRD (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- LOL! Me a Pakistani sockpuppet! What have you said? "Almost a tag team, very identical existence. Latched on to same people and subjects. Can be from a different master." Why do you suspect me? Just for having disagreed and MOVED this?. Or for the reason that my username sounds like his one? Probably you have gone confused. --115ash 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- If there is credible evidence that either or both of them are socking, the matter will need to be raised in a separate SPI case. —DoRD (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Two more suspects: User:AHLM13 and User:115ash. Almost a tag team, very identical existence. Latched on to same people and subjects. Can be from a different master. Please, advise. Aditya 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Pure censorship
Tony (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is regrettable, and I sincerely hope that he will return to the project after taking a break. —DoRD (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, your action in removing my comment and those of others is pure censorship. I'm very annoyed with him, having just found out about this; as I said, I don't disagree with the indeffing. But I want my view to be recorded—it is very relevant to the indeff. Tony (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Then next time don't post your comments in an archive? — Jeraphine Gryphon 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) I apologize if you took it that way, but it is simply protocol, not censorship. We don't allow archived cases to be edited, if for no other reason than because comments left there, particularly with cases like this that are unlikely to be active again, will probably not be seen by anyone other than the clerk or CU who archived it. It would also set bad precedent in giving editors the impression that they are free to continue commenting on cases that have been resolved. Anyway, you are welcome to air your views here, on Dick's talk, or elsewhere, just not in the archived case. Thank you —DoRD (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, your action in removing my comment and those of others is pure censorship. I'm very annoyed with him, having just found out about this; as I said, I don't disagree with the indeffing. But I want my view to be recorded—it is very relevant to the indeff. Tony (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tony1, the removal of your and others' comments is partly my fault. I didn't mean any harm. As you can see in that linked discussion, I understand about wanting to have your view recorded. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Right, so it simply won't be recorded. That's censorship. Tony (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tony1, the removal of your and others' comments is partly my fault. I didn't mean any harm. As you can see in that linked discussion, I understand about wanting to have your view recorded. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Tony1, I thought about suggesting that you reply at the archive's talk page, which is what you did here, since there is a talk page for the archive, but I'm not sure about it. It's an okay solution, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, SPI is censored and subject to protocol. Editors are not free to opine their thoughts and make any general comments that they wish in SPI cases; to be on topic, you must be presenting evidence or assisting with the actual case. Anything else is most unwelcome and subject to removal. It isn't the correct forum to state displeasure concerning the case or its outcome, that is what talk pages are for. For general problems with SPI, comments may be directed to the project talk page.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)- So it would have been better for someone to simply move the comments to the talkpage in the first place, rather than just expunging them and upsetting people. Tony (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, SPI is censored and subject to protocol. Editors are not free to opine their thoughts and make any general comments that they wish in SPI cases; to be on topic, you must be presenting evidence or assisting with the actual case. Anything else is most unwelcome and subject to removal. It isn't the correct forum to state displeasure concerning the case or its outcome, that is what talk pages are for. For general problems with SPI, comments may be directed to the project talk page.
Undertrialryryr
Hi DORD! Perchance, can Undertrialryryr's IP range be blocked, given that he is attacking other users continuously? Thanks --115ash 09:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that won't be possible. —DoRD (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dord, could you tell me the reason? Ip range of this can be blocked. --115ash 08:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I requested many times to block the IP range of ZORDANLIGHTER for one to two months, but CU rejected my suggestion.--C E (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are a very large number of unrelated users on the range, and the vast majority of them are making productive edits, so a rangeblock would prevent the many IP editors from going about their work. —DoRD (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Dicklyon
Why was he indefblocked? Normally, for first cases of sockpuppetry, we don't block indefinitely unless it's exceptionally egregious (vandal / outing socks). Additionally, I think one should consider how pressured and frustrated he likely was by certain crazed opponents.... Maybe reduce the block to a week? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. SPI always shrouds itself in secrecy but this seemed particularly harsh coming right after comments by CUs saying that the accusations against him had no validity.
- Indefinite block might not be infinite, in theory, but in this case, with no explanation, it was like saying, "Goodbye, nice knowing you, don't let the door hit you on the way out." Not a great way to treat a longtime editor. Liz 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Liz. I was just coming here to comment on Reaper Eternal's question, so I'll address both, if you don't mind. Reaper and I already had a conversation about this elsewhere, and I'll get to that shortly.
- The block was based on private information, and it involved a discussion with several other CUs, so I can't really go into detail here. Though it was not a decision I came to lightly, it did have wide support from those other CUs. However, after listening to Reaper's reasoning, and seeing a couple of concerns on my talk, I have started a discussion with the rest of the functionaries - not just CheckUsers - to gain some wider input. I realize that my message to Dicklyon was probably a bit too short and matter-of-fact, but I in no way meant for it to be taken as "don't let the door hit you in the ass." —DoRD (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sorry for being so glib. I realize that CUs and SPI clerks have a rather thankless job...some editors are upset when socking is confirmed while others get upset when you find no connection between accounts that they are 100% certain are socks. And there are privacy concerns, of course.
- But I keep running into unexplained cases where no information is given. Here's another example, this week, I stumbled across User:Mosfetfaser who is identified as a sockpuppet of User:Youreallycan and editors are referred to the SPI, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Youreallycan/Archive for more information. But if you go to the SPI, there is no mention of Mosfetfaser as a possible sock, just another sock, User:Tuscantreat. So, what's the connection? Why isn't this confirmed sock mentioned in the SPI if a CU was done and this account popped up? If it was a WP:DUCK, why refer people to the SPI? I seem to run into these odd cases at least once a week.
- Now what usually happens when I try to have these conversations is a comment that I need to assume good faith in the people and the process. And I do have GF. I'm just trying to understand how Misplaced Pages works. I have no connection to any of the editors mentioned in this conversation. Thanks, in advance for your patience and indulgence in all of my questions. Liz 22:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- In the thick of it, he told me that he hoped it was a permanent block: he wanted out. This illustrates how a hurricane can engulf an experienced, talented editor. We should not be stamping a temporary pscyhological phenomenon with permanence. It's all too silly. Tony (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sorry for being so glib. I realize that CUs and SPI clerks have a rather thankless job...some editors are upset when socking is confirmed while others get upset when you find no connection between accounts that they are 100% certain are socks. And there are privacy concerns, of course.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block opened
You were recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b
lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The latest DeFacto sock case
Nothing seems to have happened at for the last three weeks. Is there a problem that needs to be addressed? Michael Glass (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)