User talk:Sam Korn/Archive11

Portlet titles

Thanks; I did see your comment. I'm actually rather apathetic about it; I just thought it seemed odd that they weren't capitalized. --Maxamegalon2000 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion

Hello Sam

I am aware that normally you would not enter into any discussion with Muntuwandi. But just in case you would be willing to lend an ear, I just have a few comments. I believe that you have just heard a one sided story from User:PelleSmith regarding this dispute, and you have not heard Muntuwandi's side. This is Dab's version and this is Muntuwandi's version. Muntuwandi placed comments on this dab's version with comments from MW. I know that you have heard Muntuwandi is going against dab's so called consensus version. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could read through the links, including the comments that Muntuwandi left on the talk page. If you can let us know what your independent judgment is. Muntuwandi believes that he has not engaged in any original research, like dab. Muntuwandi also believes that the material he added is relevant and is from the latest peer reviewed studies and books from some of the best scientific minds. Finally Muntuwandi initiated this article one year ago and almost all the source material in both versions of the articles was provided by Muntuwandi. He therefore finds it odd that a consensus can emerge without his input. Thanks and sorry to be a bother. Mun2wandee (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring despite a month's block, against clear consensus, tends to be enough for Sam Korn. Sam Korn believes Muntuwandi and his plethora of performing socks are unnecessary to Sam Korn's vision of a perfect Wikipedia, therefore Sam Korn has seen fit to block all that cavalcade with extreme prejudice. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sock. Maybe full protection for a few days is in order.PelleSmith (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Let's see if sleepers are a repeated MO for him before that. I just found another three socks using CU. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of places in Cumbria

I am not sure if this is the right place for discussion, nor I have any intention to edit the article List of places in Cumbria. But I just noticed there are several such article are present which only list some links. Since there is WP:NOTLINK, what do you think about these articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't any particular objection to this. I presume you're referring to the bullet point Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organisation and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Lists#List content. This can plausibly come in under "article navigation", I suppose, and it's not doing any particular harm. I can't say I'd devote my time to editing it, but equally I don't see a problem with keeping it if someone wants to maintain it. WP:NOTPAPER! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen RCU

Thank You! Cheers, ~ priyanath talk 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks to be escalating, with a threat to disrupt and vandalize.[1]. The normal approach of filing a new RCU each time may be too slow. Any suggestions? An admin willing to help? The user is apparently tech-savvy, and now seems to know the ins and outs of the checkuser process. Thanks again, ~ priyanath talk 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Logitech95

Hi, you completed the RFCU, however, can you take a look at this account? Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) Because Logitech95 account was blocked for his violation on 3RR and disruptive POV pushing with his sock ip 128.120.161.137 (talk · contribs), I believe after the block on 7th of July, the user abandoned the Logitech95 account, and created the new account on the same date. Ex-oneatf created original research and POV pushing as well like this.[2] If you look into this, I would appreciate your help. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation

G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:RFCU

Apparently the RFCU request is still pending, it got deleted by the author "per privacy request" (I'm not sure why he didn't directly email one of you). I just tagged it to prevent someone from removing it by mistake. I have no more knowledge of the case, this was my wtf moment of the morning. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, why even post the request when it is a red-link. Maybe someone should drop the requesting user a note directing them to contact a CU directly via email? Tiptoety ^talk 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an answer. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: RFCU

I guess I'll just redraw the case; I thought all you had to do was check to see if their IP was the same, and then decide what to do from there. --DrBat (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCU AshTFrankFurter2

Hi, I appreciate your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AshTFrankFurter2 saying that RFCU is unnecessary to block the user User:AlwaysUnderTheInfluence. But isn't it worth doing a CU to find out the underlying IP address, and if possible, block it, to prevent more accounts being created? Isn;t that what category F is for? --BelovedFreak 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented on the RFCU. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Sorry it went in the wrong section, I will know next time. --BelovedFreak 20:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- the instructions are long and complicated! It confused me, that's all.  :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cu Prester John

You didnt sign :) SatuSuro 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You Wrongly Accused Me of Using Sock Puppets

None of these peopel are me. I know how easy it is to look these things up. Check to see if we have the same IP, same computer/operating system, are we logged in at the same time ever. It's very easy and you unfairly accused me. You are a disgrace.Grant23 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the people you banned are trying to get their accounts back, you have no proof other than they backed me up on my changes. Which isn't against the rules. There is zero technical evidence. Grant23 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup on checkuser request

Hi Sam. In followup to this checkuser request, which you fulfilled, I was wondering about blocking the underlying IP. As you probably know, there is a major long-term problem on that article with sock/meatpuppets which has received ArbCom attention in the past. It's a bit of a bear for admins to keep up with. Do you think there is a clear and narrow IP range associated with Uponleft (talk · contribs) and the latest socks which could appropriately be blocked? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sadly not -- sorry. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick followup. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thank you, email sent... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Define "likely"

Hello, you are one of the checkusers who noted that it was "likely" that fred day was allemantando (here). I understand that checkuser deals with some pretty thorny privacy issues so I understand if you can't answer or can only answer partially, but I'm looking for some sort of operative definition of likely versus confirmed in this case. I've looked (in a cursory fashion) through some of the checkuser doc. pages, but I can't seem to find a good definition. How does the project define "confirmed" and "likely"? Does that declaration include evidence and allegations raised in the SSP or is it driven wholly from IP identification? Thanks for your help. Protonk (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't think we mean "likely" in any other way than anyone else speaking English does. Taking everything into consideration, including the evidence that initially warranted the check, and bearing in mind the time period since Fredrick day edited, I think the balance of probabilities is strongly in favour of their being the same user, without being able to make a 100% confirmation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the response. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

I'm emailing you as well to make sure you get this quickly, but there is a current ANI Discussion that needs your attention. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates

78.40.35.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the latest incarnation of the Celtic vandal. Can you determine if this is an open proxy and if so block. I have it currently blocked for 48 hours. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is an open proxy. Blocked for five years. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For this, much thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the full extent of this "sock hydra", I was thinking about requesting protection myself (since I think I'm basically uninvolved). Ironically if he'd stopped to discuss properly rather than sprouting heads he might have managed to merge some of his content in. Small chance of that now, he's more like Sisyphus. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He he. The irony, of course, is that I feel like Sisyphus! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought you'd like to know that another user who apparently thinks you had a conflict of interest in issuing the protection intends to take something, not exactly sure what, relating to this to Arbcom. I don't know who s/he is nor do I understand why s/he is doing whatever it is s/he intends to do, but it is what it is. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll post on his talk page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving you a note. You're right it would have been better to do so. I see a conflict of interest because you have reverted edits previously in the edit history, and I felt that maybe you hadn't taken the big picture into account. I did make a note on the article talk page requesting an edit be made. Since then I've been checking other articles related to this one and I see evidence of article information going missing. I don't really know or understand what is going on as yet. It just smells fishy to me. I did actually suspect you may have been part of the whole sockpuppet issue. As per WP:GHBH but had no hard facts to support my suspicion. I do however want the whole case looked at by ArbCom. The Development of religion article has been split up and edit summaries either don't exist or don't match with statements made. Redirects are hiding information that could be used in other articles from what I can tell? Anyhow, I'm off to bed. This needs to be looked into by several people to put my mind at rest. If I'm being a bit paranoid and an investigation shows that everything is on the level then I'll make my appologies to everyone concerned. I just need to run this process now, but since it's so late here, it will have to be continued tomorrow.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for all your work on the socking problem. I'm going to try to go back to the wikbreak I couldn't stay on because this place just gets to me way too much. If for any reason something comes up vis-a-vis Arbcom, which I find very doubtful, I'll be happy to comment, but otherwise I'm done for some time (hopefully). No more Muntuwandi socks for this guy. Send me an email via Wiki if anyone needs to hear from me about this nonsense and you know about it. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Have a good break :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to take a look at Mr. Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) when they get a chance. 64.240.177.100 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've just received an abusive email from PelleSmith. What should I do about it? What is the correct process to put this through please.--Sting Buzz Me... 03:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another User:LoserNo1/User:Jonty303 sock?

Given this SPA's contributions, I suspect a possible sockupppet (see this discussion). However, since this individual has been caught using socks before, I wouldn't be surprised if they're editing from a different IP or are having someone edit on their behalf. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence suggests it is plausible, but by no means confirmed. This edit speaks volumes, however. Pushing that link is sufficiently characteristic for me to be extremely suspicious. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't expect him to try again using the same IP. He's been at this for years, so he knows how the system works. For now, I've tagged the user as suspected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Sam. Firstly, thanks for helping with the Avril troll checkuser. He left a message on my talk page here (I would usually revert per WP:RBI) which I’m not so sure about. Please have a quick look if you have some time. If it’s just another attempt at getting attention then I sincerely apologise. Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

He he, it's quite funny :-). He is right that a couple of accounts were wrongly blocked, but the rest of the allegations are rather amusing. Muntuwandi180 wasn't even blocked as a sock of him! The rest are *very* obviously him. Troll troll troll. Thanks for the work you're doing looking after this stuff! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(*sigh*)That's a relief - I don't really know how checkusers and Tor works so I was a bit worried there. Thanks for looking at it. Cheers, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFCU#MagdelenaDiArco

Hi. I was just alerted to this RFCU and have two questions for you. First- I am not aware of any WP policy that prohibits the use of more than one account, especially when the accounts are not used as socks. Isn't that correct? Two- why, when an account check was not even requested, have I been brought into this beyond my main account and implied to be sockpuppet? The account(s) edit completely unrelated, different topics and are never, ever used as a socks or a disruptive voices. I have been, I think, a model WP editor and I don't see why I needed to be pulled into this in this way. So much for privacy. I'm angry and completely disillusioned with this, and request that you strike any record of "sockfarm #2" in order to retain my anonimity. Dionix (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I have breached your privacy -- I don't feel I have. I'm afraid I got rather foxed by that RFCU -- it was rather confusing and your having multiple accounts rather foxed me. I have removed the section per your request. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

re Some information for you

G'day Sam Korn, Thanks for your update on my talk page. I'm going to ignore the email from PelleSmith on advice (re having a cup of tea) from another administrator. I'm still stewing a little but that will calm down once I start working on a few articles. To think I joined Wikipedia to relax. I just want to comment on my WP:GHBH concerns please. It did (and still does) look fishy to me. I did at first think you were suspect. As I got further into it i.e. checking peoples history out I saw you were more than a regular admin as you have the checkuser ability. That makes you a very trusted member of the wiki community. Trust goes a long way around this place. Members gain trust over time from their fellow editors. I'm sorry for suspecting you had a role in some sort of GHBH scenario. I do have some questions for you about WP:GHBH though? It is possible for someone to be acting out a GHBH role on wikipedia. If someone is doing that it wastes a lot of admin and checkuser time. It creates a situation of an article not being able to be worked on by legitimate editors. I'm not sure what the persons doing thats agenda is? Possibly like the firefighter who starts fires on the sly so he can play his "role" in putting them out? Or perhaps just a case of when (and if) GHBH happens here it is just to stifle a topic someone doesn't want covered here? Or an editor with ownership issues? Anyhow, I'm rambling. My questions are, if and when GHBH happens on here. Do we have a way to ascertain if it is happening? Can the community protect itself from GHBH attacks?--Sting Buzz Me... 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you are alleging that someone created Muntuwandi and his array of sockpuppets with the precise intention of edit-warring with them and causing the page to be protected on their favoured version? Well, it's plausible, I suppose, but highly unlikely. I haven't run a checkuser inquiry on anyone else in the dispute apart from Muntuwandi, but I have run a fairly intensive scan on his IP ranges and have found no other established user. Generally, good-hand-bad-hand accounts are no different from any other kind of sockpuppet and can be found in the normal way. I see no evidence of this in this conflict -- indeed, I see PelleSmith in particular being quite worn out by Muntuwandi's continued edit-warring and sock-creation. I am able to laugh about it, but then I haven't been involved in the article's editing.

You may find Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks and meatball:DefendEachOther to be instructive. They are two principles I find it very useful to abide by.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record: My email was less than civil (for which I am apologetic) but I did not attack Sting. I merely lashed out in frustration at a user inserting himself into a long standing issue making all kinds of bad faith insinuations about other users possibly engaging in very disruptive and clearly against policy behavior instead of attempting to have constructive dialog (or at least that's how I saw it from my already frustrated vantage point). I told Sting that I'm more than happy with him forwarding this email to any administrator. I'm going back on break, and I wont comment on this further, but I wanted to make this clear. In fact I suggest Sting forward the email to any and/or all people he has complained to about said email being "abusive" so that they can judge for themselves. As I said, its not civil, but its entirely a commentary on his behavior and not on his character. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't made any assumptions about anyone -- I don't without evidence. If Sting au wants to forward the email to me, my address is on my user page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the oversight help for one of my adoptees on my talk page. Sticky Parkin 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP & RFCU > SSP2 going slow

Dear Sam Korn...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalize process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Urk, I'm afraid I really don't have time for this right now -- I'm leaving on holiday for a week in less than 24 hours' time. If it's not done when I get back (heaven forfend!) I promise I promise I promise I promise I promise I'll do it then! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a little favor the next time you answer on your talk page instead of mine, please place a {{Talkback}} on my talk page to alert me to the fact that you answered. Thanks! :) - LA (T) 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check your mail

I know you're about to go on vacation, but I'd sure appreciate your response before you do. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen, again

Two new users have 'appeared', one is User:Reformedbrahmovandal who admits to being "formerly associated with User:Ronosen's group of meat puppets", and User:Project brahmo who created a WikiProject with his very first edit. Another, User:Rtiact has awoke after being asleep for awhile - his earlier short history interestingly included an edit to the article Ronen Sen. All three have joined the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism and are likely sockpuppets. They may be responding to this off-wiki call to action.[3] In case you forgot, this is related to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ronosen‎. The Keshub Chunder Sen article is coming off of protection in a day, so this may all be related to that. Could you look at them? Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm away holidaying at the moment and can't check this one for a few days. I'd file an RFCU if I were you. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - have a nice holiday! ~ priyanath ^talk 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're back, this looks like a Ronosen sock: User:Platypusbeak. I'll file an RCU in a day or two if you can't get to this. thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've filed an RCU, but the following edit may also tie him to another editor you were checking recently.[4] ~ priyanath ^talk 04:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work - hope you had a great holiday. This yahoo groups posting also connects Ronosen and RRaunakRoy/ElementR.[5] I think they are different people, but something doesn't smell right there. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ufuncecu

• He is not me, and is someone else. I sometimes don't bother to log in and use 69.23.202.204 when I want to an invite or a simple edit. If you look closely we were in a disagreement, and I did not want to add the ranking that this user wanted to add. It's a silly ranking with no merit in my opinion.Jccort (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I emailed you. Jccort (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I hate barn stars (never got one you really want). Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion in regards to CU results

Would you be so kind as to comment here please. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think this one was a mistake - as much as I appreciate your efforts to block socks (and stick your neck out over some tough calls). ~ priyanath ^talk 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you aren't watchlisting

I've left a question for you at User talk:Chemistrygeek. Thanks Sam, Keeper ǀ 76 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris19910

Thanks for noticing your mistake with regard to blocking me. User:Meus Nomen is innocent as well (it may be a sock, but it is a legitimate one), there is no relation to User:Chris19910 there, other than the fact that they used the same IP. Chris19910 is himself a sock of User:Dmits, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dmits for previous discussion. He has a couple others, but I can't remember them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You know this guy, then? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We're at college together. If you need information, I'll try and help, I made a list of these once, and never got round to sending it in. If I find it, I'll try and let you know. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

block on ip 220.245.180.135

Hi, when going to do an anonymous edit I hit the block you'd placed on 220.245.180.135. If you're aware of this please disregard, but it's a transparent proxy ip for users of TPG Internet (.au-wide isp). You can find an unofficial list of the proxy ips here: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/493725.html

While I have no clue how much vandalism was taking place from that ip, I'd ask that you reconsider the block.. you're only likely to inconvenience well intentioned but non-internet savvy editors, considering that any serious vandals would likely be aware they can simply reboot their router or reconnect to be randomly assigned a new transparent proxy ip... or do as I have done and manually specify an alternate proxy.

Tim Miller 60.241.211.21 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OOR

Hi Sam,

Muntuwandi here. I am sure that you are aware that what is currently happening at origin of religion is not a pleasant situation. I think the atmosphere is hostile that other users who would otherwise contribute have been discouraged from doing so. Of course, I am at the very least, partly or mostly to blame for this situation. However I think it is in the best interests of almost everybody concerned and wikipedia as a whole, if the issue is resolved to conclusion before it deteriorates further. I understand that this is not your problem, and therefore you are not obliged to do anything other than implement policies. However I would just like to point out policy and guidelines which I am sure you are familiar with.

Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.

I convinced that if we all adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules we can find a workable solution.

Regards Muntuwandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwando (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that I was trying to find a solution that would allow you to contribute to Wikipedia. If only you would stop sockpuppeting, people might listen to you. As long as you continue, you will be pretty much ignored. The choice is absolutely yours. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK?

Trust this is ok? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocks

Yes, but some of the IPs in the range were previously softblocked, which allowed the vandal to create new accounts and use them as they did this morning. I believe they are all hardblocked now. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day

Hello! You did the above checkuser and I am not sure on another account I found and would like your opinion if I should add it to that case. User:MikeWazowski has the same "Hi" userpage as confirmed socks Hank Pym and Prisongandleader. The account also has really sporadic edits (see [6]) with stretches of no editing and most recently after making no edits since August 13 made a slew of per noms (three in under a minute at 05:19 and FOUR in under a minute at 05:20) in the same type of Warhammer AfDs that confirmed sock Allemandtando made. Does this seem sufficient to add to the Fredrick day checkuser request? Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly grounds for suspicion and I have run a check. The account seems entirely  Unrelated. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

betacommand unblock review

Hi Sam, I have weighed in a little on the BC situation, unblocking him as he has been (since the community sanction) using what are being called "semi-automated" tools, so I think it is quite unfair that this "edits that appear to be automated" suddenly hits him when hits the wrong button once; I can say from personal use of twinkle that this can happen, it looks like what did happen, and he has assured me that it is what happened. As you were the one to outline the original community sanction, if you do have time review my comments at ANI on this, I'd like to hear whether you do still think the block was appropriate. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have replied there. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/User:King James Callahan

I really wasn't sure what to do here. As you noted, there's no abuse going on, but the whole thing seems so... odd. I mean that a brand new user would create a fleshed-out page with protection on it and everything as their very first edit ever. Looking around the checkuser page though, it seems it's something that is only for pretty serious problems, and I suppose there isn't anything so bad going on here. I guess people creating "MySpace" type profiles as their user page is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, I'll just have to get over it... Beeblbrox (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. Checkuser is basically a controlled privacy violation, though -- so it should be used with caution and only where necessary. If people want to play games in their userspace, I find it irritating, but probably the most useful and least drama-inducing solution is to ignore them -- I'm sure he'll go back to MySpace soon. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

This is just a follow up check on User:RRaunak. Can you do a third checkuser on him? --creaɯy!^Talk 04:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for new accounts? Is there anyone in particular you had in mind? It's much easier to see if you're looking for something in particular. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

59.96.103.76 (talk · contribs) and Fundamentallad (talk · contribs) appear to be just a few. Tiptoety ^talk 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kitia

Just wondering if you still wanted this case page open, as you mentioned a few days back. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, please, yes. Thanks! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just checking. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gobaudd

Gobaudd is requesting unblocking, and points out that the RFCU only called him "possibly" related to the other accounts. Could you give me some technical background here -- what does the "possibly" mean? (Email is fine.) Mangojuice^talk 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It means there are features that prevent ruling out the possibility that they are one user (for instance, they may be in the same country, though I am not saying that that is the case here) but no features to positively link them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue and Korean-Japanese disputes

Sam,

Honestly, I am trying to be reasonable suppression and censorship are not going to work.

Give this a 30 seconds look over Jimbo's talk page so you understand a little bit about what it is all about.

Its not so obvious what is going on and not a time to just kneejerk at what superficially appears.

Thank you. --125.204.110.203 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, Sam. I am trying to be reasonable. I am being perfectly open.

Others are having their time wasted just as I had and there is an element of race hate going on here.

Please, look below the surface at the real issues and appreciate how big they are in comparison with petter gaming.

If there is someone of seniority that I can speak to, please allow me to do so and put m evidence to them.

Thank you. --118.18.198.64 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to take a break now. Please think about how in important matters, such as concerted racism, censor and suppression of whistleblowers are counter productive.

Thank you. --118.18.198.64 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One more eastbayway sock

Hi Sam, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eastbayway one more time and weighing in on the IP address that weighed in there (new entry at the bottom)? Durova just pointed out, we'd overlooked it. rootology (C)(T) 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam, sorry to bother you again. Another likely sock was added by someone else, that may be affecting the RFA. Thanks for your help. rootology (C)(T) 04:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sambot

Hi,

Fantastic work on Sambot - it will be very useful. As I said at WT:CRIC if there is anything I can do to help, such as changing infoboxes etc, just let me know.

I've had a look at this edit for KP - Sambot removed the note explaining that 2 of the ODIs were for the ICC World XI - there may be other players that note this, I don't know. Is there a way for the bot to be tweaked so as not to remove the ref? I can imagine this may be a problem, and might be one just to leave. Thought I'd flag it up anyway.

I don't mind the exchange of the html – for the actual "−", but I usually prefer it to be visible in the editing page so that editors realise that it is an ndash not a mdash or simple hyphen etc. Have you any thoughts? could they be left in?

Also, is it possible to include the changing of the bowling figures from x–y to x/y as specified in the WP:CRIC style guide? I hold my hands up to using the former a lot before checking the guide! Although of course Sambot takes it from CA, which uses the ndash or even a hyphen in this case. Can the bot change this, or is it worth reconsidering the guide at WP:CRIC?

Sorry for all of the questions, although I imagine any feedback is useful to you. It's a really great idea and seems to be working well so far!

Best wishes, –MDCollins (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for response on WT:CRIC. Just another spot, traditionally (?) or maybe it's just me, the wicketkeepers have used "0" for stumpings rather than the ndash to differentiate them from outfield players. I guess it was the same with the arbitrary 0/ndash depending on whether they had scored over 50 runs/10 wickets in total type thing - I've changed my view on that and am happy to go with 0s for all. Anyway, is it possible for the bot to work out if it is a keeper (picking wicketkeeper out of the role in the infobox maybe?) I was looking at Tim Ambrose in particular, and Sambot has also left a gap in the table (no bowling average). Can any blank content be changed to an ndash? –MDCollins (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for these comments -- I'll have a look at sorting them out later. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Items fixed:

• Any information at the end of the line that does not appear to be part of the statistic being updated (e.g. ref tags) will now be ignored.
• – is now used
• Bowling figures should now match the style guide
• If CricketArchive has an empty space for a statistic (e.g. a bowling average without wickets), it will become a –
• If a player is a wicket-keeper, the statistics will show a 0 if there are no stumpings. A player who is not a wicket-keeper will have an –

I think this is all your issues... I've done a dry run and the edits look OK -- it will be clear when another run is done.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Before we spend ages populating the list of players, can the country be gleaned from the section heading to save copy+pasting it in the <name> <country> <CA link>?–MDCollins (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also done. I'll remove the country names now... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! I'm checking all of the Bangladeshis at the moment as so far they all have bad boxes. I'm creating 'shell' boxes with the information the bot won't find. Can you check one, say Mosharraf Hossain and make sure I'm not missing something out? Obviously the bot will find the stats, and I "think" it will add the first/last Test/ODI information too.–MDCollins (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As of the current moment it won't do first matches. I might program that now. I've just tested that record, and it works fine. I'm working on making a tool that will help migrating infoboxes as well... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've discovered a few players who have only played IT20 matches and not Test/ODI, the "international=true" parameter didn't really work properly. I've therefore added first/last IT20 functions, with the proviso that it is never used when both Test and ODI information is present, as it was decided that two sets of this type of info is sufficient. There's a test at Nadif Chowdhury (with all the information in). So just thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it was something the bot could look out for. Perhaps Tim Bresnan could be a candidate to try it out on. I'll put the fields in the infobox so if you want to test out Sambot, feel free. It's working really well isn't it! –MDCollins (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this - another question: Does Sambot recognise when a player has only played one of a particular type? I.e. will it add (e.g.) onetest = true/oneodi = true (and possibly now oneIT20 = true. Convesely, will it remove the field when it recognises that they have in fact now played more than one? I don't want to distract you from an infobox migration tool. I'm about half-way through checking re-writing the Bangladeshi boxes (in skeleton form) now.–MDCollins (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen those variables. What do they do? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

They remove the duplication of "First Test 1 January 2008 v Australia, Last Test 1 January 2008 v Australia", instead displaying "Only Test 1 January 2008 v Australia". Example: Nazmul Hossain.–MDCollins (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, great. Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Related note, does Sambot automatically pick out who the first/latest opposition was for each player for the International information section? Spotted you've left this blank on some of those you've updated, but I wasn't aware you'd got this added. If so, excellent. Either way, only Pakistan to go of the main countries which is excellent, but I've left a note about potentially adding some countries to this here if you haven't spotted it. Thanks a lot! Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Need your help!

Hi Sam! Could you pls speed up the checkuser process that Jehochman started against me at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Imho the "evidence" is ridculous, all I did wrong was voting against Cirt (because of the secrecy, not because I support Scientology in any way). This is a stain on my good username, and I hope you help me debunking these accusations as soon as possible. Thx. Gray62 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Sam! I'm certainly not the most enthusiastic or productive editor here, but this accusation did disturb me. I very much appreciate your efforts, and again, thx! Gray62 (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Need your help, again!

Sam, I've gathered up two piles of socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. These have pretty good evidence and I am confident that they are either sock or meat. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts with this during my RfA. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tool...

I had indeed spotted it, and it's excellent, thanks. :) Just two things, that I can live with but would be excellent if you could fix them: one, - vs – problems. It probably shouldn't ever use a hyphen, except maybe in the bowling figures. Two, it seems to put a space after every piece of information it's copied across, which is redundant. But still, it's excellent. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs)

Thanks for that message - With AllynJ, I've been systematically working through the players to make sure that they work nicely - gives a chance to tidy them up anyway. I've nearly finished the New Zealand list. The 'issues' subpage is a good idea too. I can average about 5 minutes for conversion and check through, so it doesn't take too long.A bot conversion doesn't really help as there is a lot more information to add (fairly quickly I know) - unless it involves more screen scraping, but that is unnecessary (especially if you leave the column stats out for Sambot to complete.–MDCollins (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess any help will be very useful. Just had a quick count up: there are currently 1636 that use {{Infobox Historic cricketer}}, 14 use {{Infobox Historic woman cricketer}}, 272 use {{Infobox Recent Cricketer}}, 117 use {{Cricketer Infobox}}, 1334 use {{Infobox Cricketer}}, 426 use {{Infobox Old Cricketer}} and 33 using {{Infobox Cricketer (Career)}}. How was it ever let to get so out of control?! I'll carry on sorting the Sambot ones for a minute.–MDCollins (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Brexx puppet

Hey Sam!

I've kind of taken a break from trying to chase this guy around because, frankly, it can get irritating dealing with someone who has received a clear message that he's not welcome yet he keeps coming back every two or three days with a new account or IP and contributing the same copyvio garbage and disruptive editing he's so infamous for. I must say that it really makes me appreciate what people like yourself, Thatcher and Alison have to deal with on a daily basis and kudos to all of you for having the nerves of steel to keep doing it day in and day out.

Anyway, I accidentally noticed Onceturn (talk · contribs). Everything about this guy screams Brexx, especially the user talk page warnings. Could you please check this out and let me know if it's him?

Thanks!

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Thanks for the good work! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you! I mean it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you check out Desperateghost (talk · contribs), please?
Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hotcircus (talk · contribs) started editing the same articles exactly five minutes after you blocked Desperateghost. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the go-to guy on this, how's about WIGU (talk · contribs), who has now replaced Hotcircus' edits. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Sigh Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WTAT (talk · contribs) reverted Hello Control's edit back to WIGU's version. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed, blocked and  IP blocked. Hopefully that will help. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking the IP will help for now but he is on a dynamic IP so it won't last too long. Thanks again! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but he has been on it for a little while now. We'll see if it has any effect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

S3000

Hello, Sam Korn. You have new messages at S3000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)

A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)