Vernonia

by | Mar 29, 2018 | Vernonia

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back


Blocked user Kingcutie under new sockpuppet HDClear

It appears that user Kingcutie is once again vandalizing his brother's wikipedia page under sockpuppet HDClear, for which he was previously banned by you.

It's not entirely clear to me how to proceed with bringing attention to this.

WIKI PAGE: Har Mar Superstar

OLD USER: User:Kingcutie

NEW USER: User talk:HDClear

Confusing revert

Why did you do this? The template documentation says to use it if someone has been gone for 3+ months and someone may plausibly post to that person's talk page looking for a response. Sure enough, you wrote exactly that: "He hasn't been here for three months, so he may not respond". Why remove the template? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the language that the template generates about "leaving Wikipedia". Drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the template, parameter 1 could have any arbitrary text. Do you have a proposal of what language would be better? Or after x period of not editing you would stop reverting adding the template? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles is a long-term administrator and functionary. This is not the first extended break they've taken. If they choose to announce their break, as some do, that's their business, but it's not your job to do it for them. My last response.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are being so rude to me and what you wrote in no way answers my questions. You may want to review Wikipedia:Civility. I guess I'm glad that I won't see more comments by you on this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed
  • Brianga
  • De728631
  • Georgewilliamherbert
  • Hyacinth (deceased)
  • ProveIt
  • The Night Watch

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Just by looking at Special:Contributions/ItsCruelSummer reverting your edits, they're definitely disruptive. I've reverted them. Also, they made an unblock request. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

You recently blocked User:CltzC. Before he was blocked, he vandalized my user page, so it seems he has a grudge against me. Now a freshly created account with no prior edits has shown up and left the comment "Karma is bad." on my talk page. I can only assume this is the same person. I'm not sure how to proceed. Do I need to go to SPI or can you handle this? Un assiolo (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the new user and noted in the block log that they were a possible sock of CltzC. If you want more, i.e., confirmation that they are a sock and, if so, to look for others, file a report at SPI and request a CU. If there's more of this, feel free to alert me here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't think a CU will be necessary unless something new happens. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I forgot to do was to look at the edit filter log of the new account, which I did just now. I thought I had only one edit to go on, which is always dicey without technical corroboration. The edit filter log, though, is much more convincing that the new account is a sock. I still agree with you, though, let's wait and see if it stops.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguinity

Hey, I wanted to ask away from that user's talk page. Do you just mean you think it's likely they won't agree? Or likely they'll agree but won't be able to keep the promise? Or I'm being too harsh? Or too lenient? I'm a little unclear, and since I'm toying with trying something similar with other blocked users of this type (i.e. saying all the right things, but unlikely to actually be unblocked by anyone ever) I'd love some feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. :-) I'm just generally against unblocking users if the only way to prevent them from being disruptive is to impose sweeping restrictions. Why saddle ourselves with a crippled user? I see this sort of thing at the noticeboards occasionally where instead of blocking a user, the community imposes multiple bans. And that's not to mention the fact, depending on the restrictions, it's tough for the user to keep track of what they can and can't do. They'd have to set up a floq flowchart and check it before every edit they make.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Well, you gave the go-ahead in this particular case, and they just accepted, so I guess this will be an experiment. But I do understand your concerns. I'll try to keep a close eye out to minimize disruption for others. My main thought here, without spending too much time explaining myself, is that at any one time we have dozens of blocked editors in CAT:UNBLOCK who compose perfectly-worded unblock requests, but no one believes them. I completely agree with bringing down the banhammer early, but for a new user, they're kind of in a Catch-22. Just trying to experiment with ways to break that logjam. Thanks for the feedback and the grudging ok. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "grudging" okay, just one replete with skepticism.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Unblock_conditions&diff=prev&oldid=1233350080 Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I don't think it's formatted quite right (notice the stray |), but I'm not brave enough to fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:RadioActive66/sandbox

I don't think User:RadioActive66/sandbox should be deleted. It's a userspace draft and could probably become an articlespace article. Vladislav Blazhevich already exists, but the text in the userspace draft could be merged into the existing article. LeapTorchGear (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return of L.S. WikiCleaner

As predicted, they returned within seconds after their 48-hour block to revert the article again. Could you please take action? Extending the block and locking the page might be effective. Thank you! Michalis1994 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling other editors' edits you disagree with vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? This is the same user you just blocked—evidently, they returned right after their block to revert the page again. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you I know what I've done. I should have warned you at WP:ANEW for labeling edits as vandalism. It's a personal attack; stop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sufficient evidence (diffs) to support my assertion that there were clear signs of vandalism, which was subsequently confirmed by their involvement in edit warring. I'm not sure what else to add, but I will take your warning into consideration. Apart from this, I think the article must be protected. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Table of Contents