User talk:Bsadowski1/Archives/2010/October

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You're up late.  :)

No rest for the weary, it would seem. FYI, I just shot you an e-mail. As for me, I'm off to hit the sack. Good night and keep up the good work. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

IP blocks

I extended these to 1 week as I had already put a week on one of them. FYI. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

No doubt you have more experience of this than I do. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Re: Hey there

Re your message: Yeah, it's rather bizarre. Have you found the original account? I'd like to tag all of these. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be User:Boxorange, so I tagged them all with that account. It sure has been going on for a long time. Very bizarre. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to see bizzare, see the Undelete for Danville, Illinois. --Bsadowski1 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Can you remove talkpage access from that vandal in the 98 range? I've been spending the last few minutes removing that idiot's talkpage abuses. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Done. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

M4pnt

Blocked as a Motaros sock, his unblock request actually does say all the right things, without prompting to do so. Assuming he gives up all his socks, do you think we could unblock? Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, I mean they had a few accounts with over 100 edits and were confirmed to be the same as one another. --Bsadowski1 06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but he promised to use one and only one. As long he does so, and the other accounts remain blocked, we can consider unblocking. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's high time we put our heads together and give this user an up or down reply instead of leaving them in unblock purgatory. It looks to me like this is a young person who didn't really understand why we look so dimly on multiple accounts. They seem to get it now and I am in favor of unblocking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh, why not? If we catch them doing it again, I saw we could reblock them? --Bsadowski1 20:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Since Daniel also seems to be in favor of an unblock, I'll go ahead and do it then. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Hi Bsadowski1, I see at WP:SPI/CLERK it says you don't have a clerk (unattached) would it be possible for you to take me on or is the admin backlog still evident? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:20pm • 08:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm unattached because MuZemike is now a CheckUser, therefore he can't do the clerking anymore. I am not a full clerk yet, so I can't do that, sorry. --Bsadowski1 08:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:26pm • 08:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Return of the 2006 Sensation

Hi there! A user you blocked for block evasion is requesting an unblock here. Could you have a look? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a new user to me. I don't know who it is yet, but it doesn't seem like one. --Bsadowski1 08:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a specific blocked editor in mind? I've had a look at their (non-deleted) contribs but I can't see any real evidence of this being a banned editor. If you want, you can email me if it's private or revealing info. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Return of the 2006 Sensation

Hello Bsadowski1. Return of the 2006 Sensation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The Userpage Shield
for the anti-vandalism you did on my talk page, while I was sleeping - it is obviously due to what happened on User_talk:No_Syrian, I suspect the same person using multiple IPs.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Westconnector

Hi Bsadowski1, I notice you've just blocked this editor for block evasion. I'm curious - who is it? Another editor voiced some suspicions yesterday, but I'm less familiar with the situation than them. TFOWR 22:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's User:Brucejenner. –MuZemike 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Not encountered that one before, so I feel less worried that I missed something I shouldn't. TFOWR 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block

You recently blocked another Grundle sock (This one). Could you look at this one which made a duplicate edit on my talk page: Edit? Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have blocked it. --Bsadowski1 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

Hello! It is me a user you blocked. Now you alleged that i was an old user who was evading a block. I am happy to report that accusation was false. i would howeevr like to know, in a private E-Mail though why you believed a block was nessacary. I forgive you, and I am happy to be unblocked, but I just want an explanation. Thanks. Return of the 2006 Sensation (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

why did you decline? I don't really understand the reasoning. If the user is stating that the IP isn't them, then if a checkuser sees that they are connected, isn't that the purpose of checkuser? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As what J.delanoy said, CheckUser cannot (publically) connect IPs to users per the CheckUser policy. --Bsadowski1 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what checkuser is for then. How does one determine if a registered user is utilizing socks to frive an article one way or another? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking again: I don't understand the statement. What do you mean that checuser cannot publically connect IPs to users? I've read the policy and am still unclear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That means they cannot confirm/deny that the IP has any relation with any named account. --Bsadowski1 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, would you appreciate it if somebody attempted to make a public connection as to where you live via a connection to an IP address you may have used? Because that is what you are asking, and neither I nor any CU will not do that let alone publicly disclose such CU results on-wiki as that is tantamount to outing someone. –MuZemike 22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't appreciate that, but that isn't what I was seeking to do, and I am flabbergasted that you (or others, apparently) would even consider that I was seeking to do so.
The definition of disruptive sockpuppetry is using another account to support another of your accounts. When I noticed an IP address supporting the viewpoint of a registered user, I didn't cry foul and run full-tilt to RfCU; I went to their page and asked them if they indeed had simply failed to log in or whatnot. They said it wasn't them, not once but twice. Now, good faith is a great guideline, but two editors from within 35 miles of each other backing each others' play shouldn't get overlooked simply because you wish it not to be sockpuppetry.
Since the user said the IP edits weren't theirs, how was I seeking to connect them publicly? If the user was telling the truth, no connection would be found. If the user being untruthful, then the only way to verify the socking is via RfCU. Tell me how I am wrong here, bc I seriously don't know why you are considering my viewpoint to be wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
AmI supposed to glean from your thundering silence as to my question that you have little intention of answering it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

HELLO! --Zalgo (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[1]

That was Zsfgseg again. Can someone just softblock his entire /14 range? Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I found out later it was him. The MediaWiki software won't let you rangeblock that whole range, I'm afraid. There is also too much collateral involved. --Bsadowski1 04:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Hi. I think it may have been you that asked about my use of verbatim text in Edit Summaries. These recommendations for using Edit Summaries specifically state "In the case of a small addition to an article, it is highly recommended to copy the full text of this addition to the summary field, giving a maximum of information with a minimum of effort."   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bsadowski1/Archives/2010/October"