User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SPI Investigation[edit]

Good day, King of Hearts: Firstly, I apologize if this come in as yet another heading as I can't seem to go back to my posting on your page without reverting your page entirely and I don't want to do that.

Thank you for removing the SPI label from my talk page. I am unsure of all the procedures on Wikipedia, but I believe that while you have removed the label from my talk page, my handle/name is still mentioned on the main SPI suspect list. Can you give me guidance as to how I can get my name cleared, i.e. that you have performed your review/investigations and that you have determined that I am not a sock puppeteer. Could you help me with removal of my name from that suspect list? Because currently, when someone goes and reviews that SPI list, they see my name and they immediately say I am a sock puppeteer. I don't want this to occur because I would very much like to be able to fully say that you have cleared me of this. Please advise. Thanks. Lightspeedx (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For record-keeping purposes, it's best for the page to remain; it may in fact provide evidence in your favor should anyone accuse you of sockpuppetry again. I have just recorded a 1-second block on your block log, which you will be able to point to. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppetry[edit]

Hi, You removed "Edit" privileges for "Satavahana" and accused the_Untouchables of "SockPuppetry". This is absolutely absurd.

"Satavahana" should be a piece of real history and the people who have been editing on it have put all the wrong information.

For example the religion of the Satavahanas is being put down as "Hinduism". Hinduism was never a religion in existence in the time of the Satavahanas. For more than 400 year between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century AD, Buddhism was the dominant socio-religion of the people of India with imperial patronage starting from the time of Ashoka the Great. This fact of history is not represented on the "Satavahana" page. And you seem to be supporting these pseudo-false-historians editing this piece of history on Wikipedia.

I request you to give edit access to the Satavahana page to the_Untouchables.

Regards, the_Untouchables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.28.108 (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits, a single person is not allowed to use multiple accounts to edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one account has been used: the_Untouchables. I do not know why you see multiple IP addresses perhaps because my ISP uses proxy servers. No Sock Puppetry has been engaged in. Request you to provide us with Edit Access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.83.126 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User archiving/Removing of Sock notice once expired[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I see you doing a lot of good and busy work in this area. Wish to ask for your input on Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 12#Possible ambiguity. I apologise that it has moved off main page into archive. Particularly relates to a colleague user, with reasonable English less familiarity with en.wp rules, among WP Vietnam project editors who claims "What rule did I violate? Last year, admin User:EyeSerene knew about my other account but he/she didn't block me because I didn't violate multi-account rule." but admin is no longer active (regardless I have told him he was in the wrong, and deserved his two-week block) but I'm less sure about whether he should/shouldn't be allowed to clean or archive his Talk. You may think that this is his business to fix his own mess, and it is, but WP VN project has so few active editors it'd be good if he could sort this issue out. (I'll check here for reply, if that is okay) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to remove. The main reason for a notice is to inform people of a user's history, and given that socking generally shows up on a block log, it's fairly visible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're a fair chap. I had further discussion, here note that he says "I was wrong". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter discussion[edit]

Hi User:King of Hearts,
This has reference to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#How to use 'action' variables 'upload' and 'delete' your querry >>You do not have AbuseFilter rights here, so you cannot make a filter here. Are you trying to create a filter on a test wiki? If so, which one?<<
I am sysop at three wikimedia projects and beurocrat at one; just for your info good tool to confirm this info is this.Roughly in eight year experience I do have more than 25k wikimedia wide edits to my credit out of which roughly half are spent on user help and help page related activites on mr-wiki.Since almost more than last one year I am throughly focused and working on edit filters on mr-wiki.With fair regularity I do visit edit filter management (public filters) of other wiki's too like ,fr,de,ja and some other european language wikis for edit filter comparison and improvements at our wiki. Depending on my experience I have filed more than half a dozen enhancement bugs for edit filters at bugzilla.This is not to claim my perfection but just to suppose good enough to have discussions with.
Some how I find enwiki edit filter managers afraid of technical discussion with sysops from other wikis.Since I am focussed on edit filters at local wiki before filing bugs I prefer to come to Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter for technical discussions.I am having more technical aspects to discuss and some suggessions to share.But if still enwiki edit filter managers do not want to discuss technical aspects with other language wiki sysops and edit filter managers, then do guide, accordingly I will not mind to avoid these discussions here on en wiki.
Season's greetings and Warm Regards
Mahitgar (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was just curious why you were interested. I have no problems helping you. For an example of how action='upload' is used, take a look at commons:Special:AbuseFilter/31. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing 'clouds' from my mind.Also thanks for pointing out at commons, its quite usefull,frankly I did not visit their edit filters earlier.
As action='edit' and action='move' shows results at batch testing action='upload' and action='delete' does not give any results at mr-wiki may be it is a bug after some more testing simmiller to commons edit filters at mr-wiki I will file the bug if necessary.
I have one more querry at Special:AbuseFilter/test & Special:AbuseFilter/examine on mr-wiki,we get results for "Changes by user" and "Changes made to page".But we are not getting any results for "Changes made after:" and "Changes made before:" We are trying with Date format yyyy/mm/dd .Please let me know Whether you are able to test with "Changes made after:" and "Changes made before:" date formats.Presently I am confused whether we are making a mistake or its a bug.
Thanks and Regards
Mahitgar (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have problems with the "changes made after/before" feature. Could you post a screenshot of what you're trying to do? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggested I have uploaded following sreenshot for purpose of our discussion.
Here in this case (Filter no 2 already in use on mr-wiki is simmiller to filter 98 on en wiki but this aspect is not much relevant for this discussion) This filter has already matched 3 edits on 2nd june and 3 edits on 4th june. When I test this filter with user name or page name it shows me the matching results for particular user or page. Or even I can give yyyy/mm/dd parameter within user/page name it works. But (as shown in screen shot) when I give only yyyy/mm/dd parameter without user/page name it does not show any matching results for "changes made after/before" although those are supposed to be existing.
This becomes a problem when we want to test existing or newly proposed filter against a mixed group of edits of different-different editors on different-different pages can not be done.Specially being a small wiki less number of edits experimentation data becomes insufficient. Every time I am testing major change in an edit filter searching for apropriate user/page becomes repetitive and time consuming.
Please let me know particularly about "changes made after/before" without user/page name parameter given , is it possible on en wiki ?
Looking forward to your kind reply.
Warm Regards
Mahitgar (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it tests only against the last 100 changes. So if none of them match the filter, then nothing will show up. (Check the "Show changes that do not match the filter" box to have them show up as ☒N.) It is probably better to test it against a specific user's edits, because then the limit of 100 is referring to the user's last 100 changes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
!You are partially right being a small wiki,including bot changes many times we wont have enough edits testing poisitive,but with the same reason it is very easy for us to even count and observe last 100 actions/changes manually, and those changes which are testing positive when user/page parameter is given; do not test positive vis a vis date parameters (without user/page parameter).
We ,also , are presently conducting tests against individual users, as you said.But individual user test process tends to skip rest of changes; effectively we might miss on capacity to catch some false positives before hand.That takes more time for perfection of the filter.
Still as per your suggession, I will keep testing things on the same line.Such discussion helps us being assured that we are on a right path.
Thanks for your valuable inputs and Warm regards
Mahitgar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech news: 2013-23[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. [1]
  • The Tamil Wikipedia shared a Lua module they created to automate their Main Page. [2]
  • There is now a test wiki to test new features in right-to-left languages. [3]
  • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits. [4]
  • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis after June 5. Users can return to the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address. [5]
  • Videos are now played in pop-up windows if their size on the page is smaller than 200 pixels (800 pixels on the English Wikipedia). [6]
  • Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature. (bug 47912) [7].
  • All autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files; previously only administrators could do this. [8]
  • The Nearby feature allows people who use mobile devices to see Wikipedia articles about objects and places around them. [9]
Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

AN rev deletion[edit]

Hi KoH, I undid your rev deletion on WP:AN because the text you rev deleted remains on the page, and in several other revisions, so rev deleting one particular diff does nothing but make the thread harder to follow (because it is linked as justification for the block reason). The edit would have to be removed, and then several revs rev deleted to remove that passage.

Separately, I also disagree that this meets RD2, which excepts 'ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations'. It's pretty clearly a baseless attack, so I believe it is best to let it remain, particular as it will allow for a more informed discussion of the block on KW.

Prodego talk 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, forgot about that. Sorry for the oversight (no pun intended). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

I know you're really busy with admin and clerking stuff, but if you have a moment could you pop into UTRS? The last closed requests were by me, last Friday. There are a couple near the top (the oldest) that I can't handle as I've already declined or am somehow else involved. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to get in for several days; I always get the error message "Fatal error: Call to a member function getUserId() on a non-object in /home/project/u/n/b/unblock/utrs-live/public_html/src/hooks.php on line 20." Might want to ping DeltaQuad about this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that happened to me too (there were some interface changes for the program made on the toolserver and it appears to have messed up the old login address). It should work if you click on the "submit a block appeal" link at WP:UTRS then choose "Admins:Log in to review requests". --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a star!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that's not good. I might know how to fix this, but it's probably best to ping TParis as those were his changes. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I think I've narrowed down the bug. Previously, if you attempted to access http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/home.php while not logged in, it would automatically redirect you to the login page http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/login.php. Now, it no longer does that, and instead gives an error. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN image[edit]

No offense, but I believe that this is the most unrecognizable thumbnail I've ever seen on our main page. However, it easily could have been replaced with a crystal-clear penis photograph, given the fact that you didn't upload a local copy. (Please be more careful.) —David Levy 04:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I protected it on Commons. The local version space is cascading-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I overlooked the Commons protection. When protecting a Commons file for use on the English Wikipedia main page, please insert Template:Enwiki main page.
Our cascading protection doesn't even enter the equation, as non-administrators are unable to upload a local file with the same name as one at Commons. —David Levy 20:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leslie Corlione Cruz[edit]

I notice you accepted an unblock-auto request for User:Leslie Corlione Cruz. I hope you don't mind that I've gone ahead and blocked the user–the contributions clearly indicate the user is the same as User:Revelations17 and User:66.214.123.117. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, don't know how I missed that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE[edit]

Hi. As an involved admin, you might be interested in this report at WP:AE [13] Regards, Grandmaster 20:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

Non-admins providing deleted diffs[edit]

On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noormohammed satya, you asked the reporter to supply similar diffs for the master and alleged sock. I'm unclear how the user could do that, since the alleged similarity is the creation of articles about non-notable Indian actors--thus, the articles of the master have been deleted, and are unavailable for a non-admin to look at? I don't have time to do the digging myself, but I'm not quite sure how the editor could have proceeded to fulfill your request. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sockpuppeter usually creates articles and templates about awards for Indian television shows and movies, not about Indian actors. Many of the edits are to actor articles, but they're usually just to add references to said awards. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SPI[edit]

Can you please have another look at this SPI where I asked for a checkuser? You turned this down saying that there was no indication of socking, but I'm more concerned about an old and proven sockmaster who might be involved. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Pi[edit]

Is a year not a little long? I don't feel strongly but would appreciate your reconsidering. If you still feel that a year is right that's also cool. Its just that this is a highish profile article that could be a good hook for new users. Do we not risk scaring away potential contributors if we lock it away from IPs for so long. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it to 3 months semi + 1 year PC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this. Much appreciated. Its a good admin that responds positively to challenge.  :-) Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to do a rangeblock. The annoying ip is becoming a problem on the talk page. Please see [14]. I'd do it myself, but I never did a rangeblock and I'm worried I might break the internet. Thanks for your help. Spartaz Humbug! 17:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looooooonng words[edit]

You love long words, do you? I saw a bunch of long words on your user page... 2602:304:CE23:C079:16:B412:DD8A:D35F (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, why not? (Also, looks like I've kept it on there since 2005...) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stenen Bijl[edit]

Hi, I suggest you e-mail HR for further info/evidence. GiantSnowman 09:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter details[edit]

Hi, sure, I'm interested in the details as per your post here. --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iwoulddawforyou[edit]

Hi, are you sure you didn't close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iwoulddawforyou prematurely? It was closed after a checkuser decline. I filed the case and didn't even request checkuser, since I thought it was so obvious: a new user whose first edit is in an AFD, only other edits are to the page up for deletion, even edits themselves are very similar. It seems like it was closed after the checkuser decline, but before a real review of the case... unless you think the decline is implicit in the CU decline. But this is such classic first-time sock editing behaviour that I don't buy the reasoning that "It may just as likely be another individual". That might be good enough for a CU decline but in the face of the evidence it's a pretty laughable SPI decline. If you think the case isn't worth re-opening then I'll accept your judgment. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When SPAs on AfDs are involved, it could be sockpuppetry, but it could also be canvassing or someone who happens to see that a page they like being nominated for deletion. Unless there is evidence beyond editing the same page and its corresponding AfD, we should presume innocence unless proven guilty. I personally considered this a borderline case that could be cleared by checkuser, but apparently not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Harpen47[edit]

FYI, see the COI warning I put at the end of User talk:Harpen47. This editor needs watching but I don't think any further warnings or other actions are needed at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johns article[edit]

Hi King of Hearts - I'm getting in touch because of the recently deleted Michael Johns (executive) page, on which you were the deleting admin. I didn't see the page, and so don't really have an opinion on whether or not it should have been deleted - but looking around the web, it seems to me that although there's a lot of blatantly promotional material out there, this person is actually notable, both as a political commentator/analyst, and as a leader/spokesman in the Tea Party movement. I've gone through the available online material to try and find sources that are reliable, and I've put together a short article about Johns, that I was hoping you would have a moment to take a look at. I'm a bit uncertain how to proceed, though, since the page has been deleted, and I didn't want to just go ahead and recreate it. Thank you in advance for your help. Phrenology (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please save it as a userspace draft at User:Phrenology/Michael Johns (executive) and I'll take a look. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the page is up there now. One of the things I've tried to do is to make minimal mention of his career as a health care executive, since it seems to me that it is his political career, rather than his health care career, that makes him notable - so perhaps it would be better to title the article Michael Johns (political commentator), or something similar, if it's suitable for inclusion. Once again - thanks. Phrenology (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phrenology just asked me, and I moved the draft to Michael Johns (policy analyst), which is the qualifier used by Library of Congress. I hope ypou'll agree with me that Phrenology did a very good piece of editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Phrenology, sorry I missed your reply. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your time, both of you - I'm glad you think the article's suitable. Phrenology (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your clarification [15]. As I asured admins before, I'm not sock of anyone but I've faced so many aggressive accusations from User:Til Eulenspiegel unseen in three-years of periodic unlogged editing Wikipedia. Even after clarification and 48-hours passed block (3RR issue, didn't know before) that user is again accusing me for block-evading and sockpuppetry [16]. Is it possible to report such user, do I have to make account for it? --46.239.52.227 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed the merits of the sockpuppetry case; my comments were to the effect of saying there are too many users is the range to make a meaningful block. But if what you're saying is true, then yes, you should create an account so that your IP address won't change very few days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sockpuppet of a blocked user who is evading his blocks, rather than communicating with him or encouraged in any way, he should be reverted on site. He or she has done nothing but edit-war the identical edits on the same articles. We will all probably come to regret your advising him to make a new account. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please don't read too much into my comments, as I told the IP. My involvement with the case was intended to be purely technical. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as feared, the block evader has purposefully misinterpreted that as a green light that he is "proven" not to be a sock, and has made a new account User:HistorNE. I repeat, this is certainly a sockpuppet of User:Shaushka, only continuing the very same relentless edit wars and disruption. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've created account on your advice and I suggest you to check it again because user Til Eulenspiegel is accusing me again, even on my userpage. --HistorNE (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really misunderstanding something? King of Hearts simply said it is not good to rangeblock your range. He has repeatedly said this has no bearing on your being a sockpuppet, but you are simulating this to mean you have been vindicated and may continue the edit warring at will. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary note added[edit]

Hi King of Hearts, I imagine you looked at this already Cuchullain just added summary. There's no hurry but as there are 30 or so articles involved in a restore RM as a result of the suspected sock's activities and the suspected master is supporting the RM, if there is a significant issue missing from the request for a Clerk then advice would be appreciated. Thank you for your continued work against puppetry, as noted in other context before. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the RM is now closed. It would still be helpful to know what is "difficult" about this sock - given the reason for check for sleepers seems simple and reasonable. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech news: 2013-24[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf6) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 6, and to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 10. It will be enabled on all Wikipedias on June 13. [17]
  • An alpha version of the VisualEditor was enabled on all Wikipedias on June 6. Please test it and report problems. [18]
  • Several VisualEditor bugs have been fixed; users can now add, edit and remove categories using the editor's "Page settings" menu.
  • Wikimedia error messages will no longer link to the #wikipedia [[<tvar|meta-irc-chans>:m:IRC/Channels</>|IRC channel]] on Freenode. [19]
  • The logo of 16 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a fourth group of updates. [20]
  • A test instance of Wikidata is now available at test.wikidata.org. [21]
  • Users can now patrol the first version of a newly created page if they visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges. [22]
  • Translation pages will no longer include edit section links (bug #40713). [23]
Future software changes
  • A report on mobile upload errors was published, and software changes to reduce their number will come soon. [24]
  • A request for comments on updating MediaWiki to use RDFa version 1.1 was started on MediaWiki.org (Gerrit change #67608).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

20:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call[edit]

Nice call on this one. I was debating whether to ask an admin if Prisonermonkey's post could be removed, but I decided instead to just respond to it and ask him to please strike his comments. It was blatant gravedancing on a user without talk page access. Anyway, thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The actual name[edit]

The actual name of the protein titin is:

methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucyl phenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyl lysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenyl alanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisol eucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartyl threonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartyl alanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenyl alanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolyl threonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucyl arginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonyl prolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamyl methionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysyl histidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucyl leucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenyl alanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenyl alanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalyl glycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanylaspartylvalyl prolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolylphenylalanyl arginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginyl valylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinyl prolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucyl leucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycyl arginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginyl alanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginyl arginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidyl leucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginyl alanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanyl glycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysyl alanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycyl alanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisol eucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucyl glutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyl lysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysyl alanylalanylthreonylarginylserine . 76.226.51.94 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually far, far longer than that: http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/luminary-uprise/2009/longest-word/. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI on Rodolfootoya12[edit]

Hi KoH, regarding the Rodolfootoya12 sock, I noticed that you added the sock user Rodolfootoya34 name to a blacklist, but I was wondering if that was the best approach. Without the blacklist, when the vandal takes the effort to create a user name, and it inevitably fits the ****otoya** model, we know pretty well that it's the same person, whereas if we block the name, it might get harder to pinpoint vandals as ducks. Along those lines, I wonder if there's another way to identify other IPs the user is hopping around on, so we can suppress the disruptions at the source. I know that JamesBWatson did a range block on some IPs I'd identified as suspect. I only have a superficial comprehension of SPIs, so I'm not aware of the right kind of request to make (CheckUser, etc?) or the right kind of language to use to achieve maximum results. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a behavior is easy to detect, doesn't mean we should encourage it. For example, normal vandalism (e.g. defacement of an article with poop jokes) is arguably "better" than introduction of subtly incorrect facts, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't set up abuse filters for normal vandalism. As for rangeblocks, they are best done by CheckUsers if intended to be long-term and/or hardblocks, but short-term soft rangeblocks are often done based on behavior alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your perspective. Thank you for the response! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2013-25[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 13. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 17, and on all Wikipedias on June 20. [25]
  • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions were successfully replaced by Universal Language Selector on June 11. [26]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor was temporarily disabled on Wikipedia sites on June 14 due to an issue that inserted a lot of HTML code. The issue is now fixed and VisualEditor works as before.
    • Users can now use VisualEditor to add images and other media items from their local wikis and Wikimedia Commons. [27].
    • VisualEditor also allows editing references. [28]
  • The new Disambiguator extension, which was previously part of MediaWiki itself, was enabled on test wikis. It adds the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages. [29]
  • The newly enabled Campaigns extension allows Wikimedia Foundation data analysts to track account creations that result from a specific outreach campaign.
Future software changes
  • Universal Language Selector will be added to the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias on June 18. [30]
  • Starting on June 18, VisualEditor will be randomly enabled by default for half of newly created accounts on the English Wikipedia to test stability, performance and features. [31]
  • Two new webfonts (UnifrakturMaguntia and Linux Libertine) will be added to wikis that use Universal Language Selector. [32] [33]
  • It will now be possible to hide the sidebar while using the Translate extension to reduce distractions (bug #45836). [34]
  • A patrolling link will now be visible for un-patrolled pages, even if users don't visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges (bug #49123). [35]
  • A request for comments on enabling a new search engine for MediaWiki was started.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe. 00:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Why use extreme terms[edit]

Some areas of Wikipedia use the term "ABUSE" which could be substituted for "MISUSE". Such as this code for {{unblock request declined}}, I have substituted "abuse" for "misuse".

Why do they have to go so extreme?? 76.226.75.220 (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the part about abuse/misuse entirely; see the template now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biker Biker[edit]

There had been no edits from any of the accounts since 12 June, and according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals, "In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate". If the user had continued to use multiple accounts without addressing the concerns, blocking would be appropriate, but for the last few days there has been no evidence of an ongoing risk of disruption, even if it's accepted that there was one before. Is the policy page still correct? Peter James (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the matter has not become "cold." People can change; facts can't. If someone should have been blocked for disruption, incivility, etc. two weeks ago, then we don't block them if they haven't been blocked already since they might not make the same mistake again. However, it is established here as a fact that Biker Biker is using undisclosed socks; two weeks later, they'll still be socks, so unless he follows policy and discloses them (it was judged that the overlap was sufficient to require disclosure), they must be blocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there was evidence of intent to use the accounts to breach valid policy (which wasn't presented at SPI) I would agree, but I had assumed that it was intended to be a legitimate alternative account, and that it would be acceptable for the user to be more careful when switching between topics. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's very easy for him to get the block undone: Just agree to disclose the accounts on his user page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Replied. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tech news: 2013-26[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf8) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 20. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 24, and on all Wikipedias on June 27. [36]
  • Universal Language Selector was successfully enabled on the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias. [37]
  • The new interface for account creation and log–in is now the default on all Wikimedia wikis. The old look is no longer available (bug #46333). [38]
  • The TimedMediaHandler extension now supports native FLAC files. A discussion to allow this file type is taking place on Commons (bug #49505). [39]
  • After a test period, the Disambiguator extension was enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 18. [40]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • A VisualEditor bug temporarily made all new accounts unusable. The issue is now fixed and account creation works as before (bug #49727).
    • A high importance file insertion bug has been fixed, but the feature does not work perfectly yet. [41]
  • It is now possible to synchronise local CSS and JavaScript files with the beta cluster. This should make it easier to test software features before they are enabled on live wikis. [42]
Future software changes
  • The default link to a help page on editing, visible below the editing window, will change on almost 600 Wikimedia wikis and will now link to MediaWiki.org (bug #45977). [43]
  • Universal Language Selector will be enabled on wikis without language versions (such as Wikisource and Wikispecies) on June 25. [44]
  • The AbuseFilter extension will allow filtering links and HTML code for page creations. [45]
  • The related changes special page will now include upload log entries. [46]
  • It will soon be possible to choose the language of SVG files that contain translations. [47]
  • MediaWiki will now allow converting audio files from one format to another. [48]
  • The Wikidata technical team has started a discussion about how Wikidata can support Wiktionary. [49]
  • The search feature on Wikimedia sites is planned to be modified to use Solr on all wikis by the end of 2013. [50]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reality GameMasters[edit]

Hello, you just commented on an SPI related to Reality GameMasters. A key piece of evidence is the previous version of the Reality GameMasters article--the deleted version by a sock of a banned user. Could you please compare it to the current version? Because I am not an admin, I do not have access to the deleted version of Reality GameMasters or its history. Nor can I point to diffs related to that article--I do not have access to those. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huon[edit]

He removed the mottos in the religion in national symbols article in one of the edits. Can you warn him with an only warning and block him? NewFranco (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop shopping around. You've been told multiple times that Huon is not vandalizing. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/108.249.22.222/Archive[edit]

So did you determine whether the behavioral and other evidence shown makes it very likely that sock puppetry has been committed by User:108.249.22.222? Once again you have closed the SPI without calling it. That the suspected sock is a dynamic IP is irrelevant - the master IP is static. Keri (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear to be sockpuppetry. My lack of objection to the claims should be a clue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for appearing pushy; I was keen to see an admin make a call - be that likely sock, unlikely sock or undetermined - and misinterpreted your response. Thanks for your attention. Keri (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morning277 and MooshiePorkFace[edit]

Hi! I saw your question over on the Morning277 SPI. If it helps, both Morning277 and MooshiePorkFace were running separate accounts on Elance and the other freelance sites. I guess they could still be the same person, but I have them listed as separate. However, over the last few months, there's been more of a move towards subcontracting people to be part of an editing team, so jobs get farmed out over a few paid editors. - Bilby (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirokiazuma[edit]

I noticed as many as three suspicious edits which occurred before you marked the case as closed. The last one was about 2 minutes before your edit. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a sock to be handled, you have to name it in the case; if it's already closed, then open a new one. We clerks are not clairvoyant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited for discussion[edit]

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn[edit]

King of Hearts, I was the one who produced that additional evidence that apparently made you decide this was a WP:DUCK (and not in need of further investigation)—I'm active over at DYK, and I think this may be my first time supplying such evidence. My question is whether there are any consequences for sockpuppeting, since you're sure that's what this is, or if such investigations have no ultimate result. If the latter, I won't bother to spend time on supplying evidence in future. Thanks for any information you can give me in general, and on this particular instance. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is mandatory to provide evidence in the form of 1) a diff from the master 2) a diff from the sock 3) explanation of why they are related, if not clear from context. Consequences for sockpuppetry are an indefinite block for the sock and a limited (or possibly indefinite) block for the master. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. So in this case, there will be indefinite blocks for the three socks and some sort of block for the master? Will the decision be posted on the investigation page, or somewhere else? I'll keep my eyes open; I'm curious how this will resolve. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The socks are already blocked. As for the master, I think Amalthea would know better what to do, so please contact him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know the socks are blocked; thanks. If it's up to Amalthea what happens next with the master account, then I doubt anything will be done given Amalthea's comments on the investigation page. Billy was on indefinite ban starting in 2011, but kept socking anyway, so Amalthea ended the ban in April on the theory (as I understand it) that if Billy's account is open, it's easy to track problematic articles when they're posted so there's a chance of fixing them, but far more difficult to uncover the multitudinous socks and problematic articles posted in their names if the master is banned. It took Billy a couple of months to discover that the ban was lifted, after which he switched to his unblocked master account, taking credit (as you saw) for the recently socked articles. Given the rate of creation, both of articles and of sock accounts, there must be a great many of them out there. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as rejected AfC submissions[edit]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as rejected AfC submissions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SuperMarioMan 01:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harlow1937.
Message added 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't understand why my SP/I-CU was declined before I had a chance to add the requested information. At any rate, the requested information was added and I think you should take another look. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sock[edit]

Evidence has been updated --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2013/06&oldid=1168303280"