User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Great catch. This seems to be part of systematic addition of false information to Wikipedia by two accounts on similar topics which I've been looking at. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation after seeing more such nonsense. Blythwood (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it necessarily a great idea to close immediately? I ask since with another SPI I opened last year we found seven other accounts nobody had realised were linked. Though a text search for keywords they used hasn't found anything suspicious. Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Both the accounts named in the SPI had been blocked, and nobody had asked for a CheckUser. Neither anything written in the SPI nor anything I saw in the editing histories of the accounts provided any evidence that there was likely to be any other account. I really don't see anything that would have been achieved by leaving it open; if anyone finds any other evidence then they can present it, either by re-opening the SPI or by some other means, such as ANI or contacting an individual administrator, while if nobody finds any other evidence then there is nothing that is going to happen just because an SPI is left unclosed with no outstanding evidence to be dealt with. The other case you mention is very different, in that the extensive history of the sockpuppeteer gave reason to think that more accounts would be likely, so that a request for CheckUser was both requested and accepted. In the recent case, I have no doubt whatever that unless further evidence can be provided, any request for CU would be declined by a clerk as pure fishing. However, if you disagree with that assessment then there is, of course, nothing to stop you from reopening the SPI and this time requesting a CheckUser. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I have limited experience with SPIs and I actually didn't realise you had to specifically request CheckUser with SPIs, sorry. Thanks for the quick action, anyway. Let's hope Mr. Blackwood gives up on this nonsense. Blythwood (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some accounts operated by User:Supreme Genghis Khan are now harassing you as well as me. Just giving you the heads up the latest account User:Genghis Khan JamesBWatson has been globally locked by a steward. And, there is still an ongoing SPI (note: in the latest SPI the username is obscene). TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 08:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My user and talk pages also got hit with some mild vandalism as a consequence of getting involved. Their most recent sock puppet was User:GenghisBWatson_JamesBWatson_JamesBKhan, which recreated the attack page JamesBWatson_is_a_peasant. They went for me after I flagged it for speedy deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January, 2014, you semi-protected the Eisenia andrei page for 2 years because of a persistent spammer. Now that the protection has expired, the spammer is back again. Care to take another look at the article history and considering re-protecting the article? Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil916:  Done This is a remarkably persistent spammer, who has been active since April 2013. Why he or she doesn't get the message that he or she is just wasting time, as the spam just keeps getting reverted, I can't imagine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil916: I have now also added the link that the spammer has been repeatedly adding to the spam blacklist. Several articles have been repeatedly attacked by to this spammer. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to say that I'm sorry that this "Genghis Khan" person keeps harassing and attacking you. Please don't let it get to you. Linguist 111^talk 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Linguist111: Thanks for the good wishes, I appreciate that. However, I have had far too much experience on Wikipedia to take things personally, and I don't think there is any risk of my letting it get to me. One more silly child messing around, out of hundreds or even thousands that I have seen over the years isn't anything to worry about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that :D Linguist 111^talk 20:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamez0 has asked for a deletion review of Austin Wade Petersen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know this user's been blocked and tagged. It's username is impersonating you. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the block settings I imposed on User:Berniesanders2016. I agree it is a vandalism account, and most would likely agree that it is very unlikely to be an account operated by Bernie Sanders. But the template invites him to create a new account, and you have blocked account creation. The templated message should be replaced by a more accurate blocking message. Maybe I should have used a vandalism only template, but there were fewer edits(only two) than are typically the basis when I do a voa block. Sometimes the templates just do not fit. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison: I agree that I wouldn't normally do a vandalism block on the basis of two rather mild vandalism edits. In fact, I don't think I would have blocked at all: I would have just given a warning that the username needed to be changed, and also that vandalism wasn't acceptable. I virtually never use username blocks, on the basis that if the username really is the only issue then a block is unnecessarily bitey, since a friendly message explaining the need for a username change is better, while if the username is not the only issue then a block which in effect says "you can carry on just as you have been doing, provided you use a different username" is misleading and unhelpful. However, I have no criticism of you for making a different decision. With hindsight, I think the change I made was unnecessary though, and I have restored your original block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In another block of vandals who were hitting Passmores Academy, you blocked vandal User:Wankbanter and the template lacked a signature. Should block notices be signed? Granted, the curious blockee can look in the talk page history or block log. Regards. Edison (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I usually sign block notices. Why I didn't sign that one, I don't know. It is just possible I had some reason in mind at the time, but more likely it was just an oversight, and I have now added a signature. (Actually, as soon as a blocked editor tries to edit, the notice telling him or her that the account is blocked says, prominently near the top, "Editing from Edison has been blocked (disabled) by JamesBWatson", so the blocked editor knows full well who placed the block, and the signature on the talk page is more relevant to other editors who want to see who placed the block. I even know of one administrator who never posts block notices to user talk pages, on the grounds that the blocked editor sees the details of the block anyway, and anyone else can easily check the block log. I don't agree with him, for several reasons, and I have told him that I don't, but he sticks to his opinion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		When somebody creates a slew of new accounts just to call you names it's usually a sign that you're pissing off the right people. Admin work can be a thankless task, but just think: every moment they spend calling you names is a moment that they're kept away from anywhere that they could do any real damage! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Well, if that is a sign that I'm doing the right things, then I must have recently dramatically improved my performance. I've had the odd few accounts of this kind before, such as JamesBWatsonSucks in February 2011 and JamesBWatsonSucksShit in March 2014, but the recent outbreak has vastly exceeded anything I've seen before. I seem to remember that I once told Bishonen that I regard such imitation as the sincerest form of flattery, and what you say amounts to a more amusing way of saying the same thing. Or maybe it wasn't Bishonen. Perhaps the most amusing thing about all this is that the people who do it apparently expect it to upset me. Like, I am supposed to think that the fact that some child (presumably) has nothing better to do with his or her time than keep creating Wikipedia accounts to say rude things to me is an indication not that he or she needs to get a life, but that I am somehow bad. In fact, I actually care far less about this kind of infantile troll than I do about other kinds of vandalism, for exactly the reason you mention: they are doing that irrelevant nonsense instead of doing any real damage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James, can you email me copies of the edits to my user talk page from the 31st, the ones from the Verizon Wireless IPs? It's not that this guy is hurting my feelings at all, but it's time to send this guy on a vacation from the internet. Kailey 2001 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with recreating Category:Biography is that it completely defeats the purpose of ever having had the category renamed in the first place: because a bot automatically captures misfiles in non-empty category redirects, and automatically refiles them in the target category, Category:Biography (genre) is going to now get continually recluttered with exactly the same biographical articles about people that its renaming was designed to prevent. I agree with protecting it, but it should be protected as a non-creatable redlink rather than as a category redirect unless you're officially volunteering to become the guy who has to check that category every single day for the entire rest of your life to remove any misfiled BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Thanks for explaining about the automatic bot filings. That obviously makes a considerable difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Iranian_four-thousanders&curid=41910114&diff=713356746&oldid=677730485 :) Viewfinder (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewfinder: Sorry, I have no idea why you are calling my attention to that edit. It replaces content contradicted by one of the cited sources with different content with a new source which does support it, but that's all I can see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/172.97.230.224 -- John of Reading (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Yes, and Special:Contributions/172.97.161.102 too. I'll ask Gogo Dodo to consider amending the edit filter that he/she wrote, so that it will cover the new IP addresses. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I added in 172.97.128.0/17 from distributel.ca. See if that helps. That is not their only netblock, so we may have to add others. The filter's last edit blocked was on March 21 and then January 31 before that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have created a Wikipedia page on Dusty Wolfe. I need help creating Wikipedia pages, can you help me?

Davidgoodheart —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgoodheart (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 April 2016‎

@Davidgoodheart: I didn't create the article, I just deleted it, undeleted it in response to a request from an editor, and temporarily moved it to userspace to give a chance for it to be edited without risk of being deleted again. The article was actually created in January 2012, by an editor who never edited again after that one edit. If you've got any specific request for any particular help, I will be happy to do my best to answer, but I don't regard advice on creating articles as one of the areas I'm best at, so you may find someone else more helpful. You may be able to get help at Wikipedia:Help desk or maybe Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]