User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2014/04

Dear King of Hearts edit

I truly appreciate that at least this part of witch-hunt is over. I'm being bashed on another incident that was caused by my adding of one-sided links to fashion sites I love. I apologized there but also argued in a nice way , why I believe the links must be on Wikipedia [1]. I love fashion more than anything in the world and I love to share my passion with other users. In this case I probably shared to much, but I thought that after the links to FMD (the site in question) made of half of the references in the profiles, it should be legit to offer the wiki-user a more specific and neutral profile about a designer/model or whatever. Now imagine, you love a couple of websites like crazy - I for example spend a lof of time on style.com, models.com and of course FMD, and because you are so much into this, you want to provide the users much more information about a designer like Dries van Noten (like in my example in the defense linked above), and you link it of course. I linked it because on FMD you have besides much more biographical information also an image of him, but also over 600 fashion works of him. Isn't this a good reason to link to it (and the links are in compliance with WP:EL and RS). The most terrible thing is actually, that they are now talking about punishing a fashion database - which besides has delivered Wikipedia so much information - just because of my behaviour. This is pure injustice. Sorry for flooding you with my concern, but you were the first to something good to me in proving that I am not a sockpuppet (this was part of the withc-hunt that came from there), and I would truly appreciated if you could have a look at the issue there. ► robomod 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I also wanted to add that after reading the talk's page of user Vituzzu , who is an official Wikipedia administrator and also the accuser of me being a spambot/spammer, the language he is using there, especially the Italian , is so much below a serious and educated (he is calling users dickheads and other real bad things!), that I would love to file a complaint on a superiors Wikipedia-entity. Could you guide me to a website that allows the de-administration of users? I couldn't find one so far. ► robomod 15:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Doctornickel edit

Hi, Your Majesty. I re-opened the Doctornickel thread that you had closed ("Boomerang"), because I'd discovered it was a sock and have indeffed the account accordingly. Anybody can re-close it, but maybe you'd like the honour? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC).Reply

  Done -- King of ♠ 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

sockspuppets edit

Thank you for you help in banning the sockpuppets and the user who made the sockpuppets that affected the ufo phil page.172.56.17.16 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 02 April 2014 edit

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has it moved to? edit

Morning I wish to ask where the content of the latest enquire has gone to? ie dated March 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FanforClarl I have looked at the notes and it suggests it was moved to here but that is not the case since it wasnt; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FanforClarl/Archive Fanforclarl so where has the details been moved to? Thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Detroit Joseph edit

Could you have another quick look at this please? I've added diffs. The question isn't whether they are sockpuppets (they pretty much admit as much, and both accounts were created the day after the master was topic banned from the subject), but whether a CU would be useful to see if there are any more. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah; it's just that CU's tend to be pretty inflexible about the diff requirement regardless of the case. -- King of ♠ 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
No problem, thanks for doing that. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

IP socks edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.217.220.179

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.179.85.140

I saw this. I thought you might want to know that there is definitely IP socking by DJFryzy at chiropractic. I think the chiropractic page should be semi-protected. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done King of ♠ 23:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I just remembered because of the persistent problems the status quo was semi-protection. QuackGuru (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. -- King of ♠ 02:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. There was another suspicious account that might be a sock. I'm not sure if it is DJFryzy or another chiropractor fan. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to open a new SPI, and be sure to include relevant diffs from both the master and the suspected sock. -- King of ♠ 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Since I'm not sure on this one I will move on for now until there is hard evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sally Kellerman. edit

King of <3. Could you please assign me a mentor to assist in making the Sally Kellerman article worthy of GA consideration. I have been hard at work in gathering legit sources to provide information on her career. In addition, I did take apply the assessor's comments to the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avario87 (talkcontribs) 03:32, April 10, 2014‎

You can look on WP:GAN for users who have made many reviews. They would likely have a good understanding of how to get articles up to GA status. -- King of ♠ 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

SockPuppet Investigation Immediately closed by an administrator when the accused requested him to close it- Need Immediate attention edit

Hi User:King of Hearts ,

I had opened a sock puppet investigation on two users Shriram and Lihaas on India General election page- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram. One of them suddently made a request to another Administrator ( RequestMadeHere ) to close the investigation and the page was immediately closed.

Excerpt- User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary.


Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Soorejmg has sent this message to six different administrators. See User talk:Soorejmg#Canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply


Hi KoH, The accused user Lihaas asked another Amdinistrator JamesBWatson to close the SockPuppet INvestigation and he immediately did that. This is supisicios. Please have a look. As the page Indian general election, 2014 is a high profile page in India now due to ongoing election, there is very high chance of paid editing in WIkipedia by political parties in a wide manner to make page look advantage for them. I would request your kind intervention in this case.

Excerpt of request made by the accesed Lihas to JamesBWatson- "User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)"

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppets of Techastrax edit

Hi, I would like to point you back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichek where I have provided diffs as requested. The currently suspected puppets are those of Techastrax, the mastersock. It seems you have moved the mastersock to Ichek, but I would say that Techastrax is a different sock despite sharing similarities with the currently suspected socks and Ichek. The main aim of the current socks are to revert the prevailing consensus of legitimate users' concern to use PPPs instead of exchange rates on List of countries by average wage, where they seem to use hit and run guerrilla tactics with random IPs that have no edit history. Massyparcer (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A new sock has showed up again which is an IP with no prior edit history other than emulating the mastersock. I'm starting to fear that these socks are trying to evade the system by generating random IPs..the new IP sock emulates its prior socks perfectly..I'm not sure what to do here but have updated the closed case with diffs. Massyparcer (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
64.134.231.154 has been blocked. -- King of ♠ 22:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think we need to protect the article (List of countries by average wage) from new users to allow the process of gaining a legitimate consensus take place without abuse. Otherwise, I fear that the socks will keep inventing new IPs to evade the Wikipedia system.. Massyparcer (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
  Done King of ♠ 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The socks seem to have found a new way to evade the measures put in place..after you protected the page from new users on April 16th, a new sock was immediately created, User:Linxar75[10], who has gone around editing other very related pages to pretend to be "different" since he needs time to be autoconfirmed. After that time was up, he finally showed his real agenda by emulating the mastersock once again by reverting the page against consensus without any prior discussion: [11] This was subsequently reverted by a good-faithed editor but the situation has gone even more complicated - He created a separate page titled List of countries by average wage (nominal) in an attempt to override the exiting article List of countries by average wage - [12]. Another duplicate one titled List of countries by average wage (PPP) was created as well. I'm afraid that the situation will get out of control if we don't deal with this sock soon.. Massyparcer (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked the sock and reverted/deleted all their edits. Unfortunately, there is no good way of completely stopping sleepers from popping up. -- King of ♠ 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The IP's for E4024 haven't been blocked yet edit

Will they be blocked? Are we waiting for something? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I blocked the entire range, which includes those listed IPs. -- King of ♠ 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can I revert all the disruptive editing the IP has caused in the AA2 topic area? After all, the master puppet is indefinitely banned from AA2. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
As long as the edits were made after the master was blocked, feel free to revert per WP:EVADE. -- King of ♠ 05:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 09 April 2014 edit

Help needed edit

Dear, Death and adjustment hypotheses was deleted previously under due circumstances, but now it has been recreated and I believe it is not the same way as before. I earnestly request you, as an experienced editor at wiki please help me improve the article. Bolton007 (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

CU request via UTRS edit

Hi KoH, I've responded to your CU request at UTRS. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Fredin323 and User:Chessandcheckers edit

You recently advised User:Fredin323 and User:Chessandcheckers about WP:SHARE in closing their SPI here. However, now that User:Chessandcheckers is blocked for edit warring, User:Fredin323 is back here continuing the same edit warring and using the same language in the edit summary. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked him for edit warring. -- King of ♠ 23:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your help. Bahooka (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Less than 7 hours after this block for edit warring ended, User:Fredin323 started edit warring again with 3 quick reversions at California State University, Fresno (05:34, 24 April 2014‎; 05:50, 24 April 2014; 06:53, 24 April 2014). It seems User:Fredin323 is thumbing his/her nose at Wikipedia, but whatever the motive, would you please follow-up with the appropriate sanctions? Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, right now a lot of time has passed since the reverts, which would make a block punitive rather than preventative. Let me know if he reverts again. -- King of ♠ 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
User:Chessandcheckers is active again right now removing content here. And now he has specifically called me racist against WP:NPA. Bahooka (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have blocked both users for 72 hours per WP:SHARE. -- King of ♠ 20:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I had set up a case on the edit warring noticeboard because I didn't know if you were on Wikipedia right now, so I will go ahead and remove that. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 23 April 2014 edit

Could you please restore the talk page history as well? edit

I'm referring to Talk:Hold 'Em (Windows), of course. I did mention that I would like this history restored as well in my original request. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done King of ♠ 18:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your comment to me on this matter at WP:REFUND (to which I replied there), I think it's an excellent idea to start a new discussion to clarify the appropriateness of restoring history under redirects, when that history was deleted via AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lord of Rivendell SPI edit

Hello,

I'd like to know whether you IP range blocked the sockpuppet IP's of Lord of Rivendell. He's coming out with new IP address almost every time he edits (example [65]). Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I did not. And it looks like too large of a range to block. -- King of ♠ 16:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sock edit

Hi .. you just closed as "no consensus" an AfD where (you may not have seen it; probably didn't have notice of it) in addition to the nom having been indef-blocked, one of the remaining two d !votes was by a what was (before your close) found to be a sock of the indef banned sockmaster nom. I wonder if under the circumstances you could review that -- the sock's !vote should not therefore be counted, and without it I believe the AfD should be a keep close. Tx for your consideration. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done King of ♠ 16:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Shafiroff edit

Just curious, but isn't it customary to relist AfD's at least once before closing as "no consensus?" -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

No. See WP:RELIST: That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. -- King of ♠ 16:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Aaahhh -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blocking an editor prior to vandalism after final warning edit

Hello King of Hearts,

I find it very concerning that you blocked Marilena82 despite the fact that she did not vandalize after my fourth warning. On the contrary, she stopped vandalizing and apologized on my talk page. I would appreciate an explanation for your adminstrative action.

Thanks,

TheCascadian 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I must not have looked at the timestamps closely enough. I have unblocked her. -- King of ♠ 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks. I removed the block template from her talk page. TheCascadian 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162 edit

Would you please block Special:Contributions/189.189.56.162 for three months and sockpuppet to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf? It is very similar of Special:Contributions/Andrewbf. 183.171.176.174 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Request edit

Can you also delete Alfredo Gonzalez (baseball player)?--Yankees10 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Branham-Bailey edit

why did you close early? the relist had not gone 7 days. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A relist does not have to run the full 7-day course. As long as 7 days has passed since the original nomination and consensus is clear, the AfD can be closed. -- King of ♠ 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

07:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Aimperator and the Yardley of London article edit

Aimperator has resumed edit warring on the Yardley of London article by again adding uncited material to the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Blocked. -- King of ♠ 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply