User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 24

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As a subscriber to one of

• Wikimedia Foundation highlights
  • New support material for program organizers: Evaluation report about edit-a-thons, and a pattern library
  • "Beta Features" option allows users to test upcoming software changes
  • Open Source Language Summit in Pune, India
  • OAuth extension makes it easier to use third-party editing tools
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other highlights from the Wikimedia movement
  • Tenth anniversary of Wikisource
  • Indian university releases encyclopedia under a free license
  • Diversity Conference
  • Photographer receives $17,000 Kickstarter funding to document video games on Wikimedia Commons

08:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Hi there. I note you've asked "where's the diffs?" on the SPI report on JohnDopp. Having never actually filed one of these before, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I've pointed to the edits in question - I take it there's some way of pointing to them that illustrates the before/after differences? If that's necessary here, could you explain what I should do (or point me to an explanation)? Thanks! NaymanNoland (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to review Help:Diff - it's essential when going through any process on Wikipedia, not just SPI. --Rschen7754 07:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that I understand. So basically, every edit I'm pointing out should be referred to using its diff URL? I'm in fact talking about fourteen or so separate edits - do you require the diffs for all of them?NaymanNoland (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but you need enough to prove your case. --Rschen7754 07:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will collect and post them. I'll perhaps bug you when I'm done to make sure I've done it properly. I take it I want the diff between one edit and the next - not the diff between that edit and the current state of the page?NaymanNoland (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. --Rschen7754 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hope it's not too much information. (And thanks again.)NaymanNoland (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not quite clear on how this works. You say that evidence that I wish to add should be added to the evidence subpage. However, I already presented my response to the original notification of the Arbitration Case on the Request page here. Am I supposed to cut and paste it to the Evidence page as well? Am I supposed to wait until others present their evidence against me before presenting mine? Should my evidence be different from what I've posted to date? Please clarify. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence should be posted on the Evidence page too. Keep in mind that you have a 1000 word and 100 diff limit, and you may need to respond to others providing evidence against you. It is possible to ask for additional words and diffs from the drafting arbitrator, but you should ask before you post the evidence. As you are the subject of the case, extensions are likely to be granted, within reason. --Rschen7754 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Am I supposed to do this after my accuser posts his/her evidence? Or should I wait until after? Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Either is fine, but be aware that there is an end to the evidence phase. --Rschen7754 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, December 29, I got that. I'm just trying to understand if I'm expected to just repeat what I've said already or just refer to what I posted when the case was first requested. Should I wait until my accusers post to see if they say anything new or different? Am I going to be asked questions by the individual ArbCom members? Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything you wish the arbs to consider needs to be entered into evidence. Arbitrators may have questions for you, but that is usually done in the Workshop phase. --Rschen7754 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're the case clerk on a case in which I'm a party but this is a first for me, and thus I may not always reply where I'm supposed to or use proper format/indent; if there's anything, don't hesitate to fix stuff (and preferably let me know!). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Interstate 555 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

Thanks,

The behavioural evidence you just deleted is the first thing that's been posted on that SPI that actually does address the issues. If anything, the TLDR arguments above it should be hatted (as I already did with part of it). How can an SPI proceed if actual useful evidence is removed? Restore it, please. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, but why did you delete evidence from a Sockpuppet investigation? I wasn't exactly padding my words with flowery turns of phrase; I was providing diffs. - MrX 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can readd it in a more concise way, you can, but expecting the clerks/CUs to review 65 diffs is ridiculous. --Rschen7754 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of having 65 diffs is to point out behavioural similarities? If there were only a few diffs, it wouldn't be evidence, would it? Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to diffbomb the page in the hopes that there is grounds to run a CU. I am sure that only a few are necessary to prove the point. --Rschen7754 21:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly a major issue to hover the mouse over the links to confirm that they do actually show what they purport to. It took me a couple of minutes. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but the clerk/CU has to look over the evidence carefully to make sure there is actually grounds to run the check. --Rschen7754 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So how are they going to work out if there are grounds for an SPI or not if the evidence has been removed completely? Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As I already said above, MrX is welcome to repost a more concise version of the material, with only the minimum amount of evidence required to justify a check. That is, not on the order of 65 diffs. --Rschen7754 21:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I expected the clerk to sample a few diffs to make sure that they were representative, and then look at the mass of evidence as a whole. You have taken that off the table as even a possibility. I request that you revert your edit and restore this evidence. If you wish not to read it, that's your choice, but please don't suppress it. - MrX 21:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

For the SPI on Steeletrap -- though I woulda thunk a 65$ relationship was notable per se. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Interstate 15 in Montana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Boulder River

Interstate 190 (Massachusetts) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian Lake

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

08:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

JianhuiMobile ^talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JianhuiMobile ^talk 07:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Pratyya ^(Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — 21 Call me Hahc21 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Rschen7754, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. --Rschen7754 05:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

have another Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Katrina Villegas. How do I reopen? I blocked her. Same-old-same-old. Dlohcierekim 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You can follow the directions on

WP:SPI. --Rschen7754

19:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk

Hello, Rschen7754. Like I stated in the above linked investigation with regard to Picker78 admitting only after he is caught that he is Picker78, see here. He taunts like that all time. This is one of the most persistent, mind-boggling sockpuppets (mind-boggling because of the sheer trivial matters he focuses on) that I have ever seen. Is it okay to run a check on his Promiscuous man account now for

You will need to ask a CU to do this. --Rschen7754 17:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. As you likely know by now, since I linked your username at

talk

) 18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Very well; I guess if this should come up again, I'll simply open up a new case instead, along with an explicit quote of the policy that was abused,

You should not have struck out LFaraone's decline, as it led to gaming of the system. The reason SPI is so strict about the rules is because if a mistake is made there, it can lead to someone's privacy being violated. Please do not do any of what you did (reverting a clerk, reverting a clerk's action marked (clerk action), crossing out a CU's decline, etc.) again. --Rschen7754 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article California State Route 76 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:California State Route 76 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rschen7754. You have new messages at Philippe (WMF)'s talk page.
Message added 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do, sorry. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

yawn --NE2 06:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be away until late Tuesday December 31, only having phone access. --Rschen7754 16:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Revi^con — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--

Given that you have reverted some of BattyBot's citation edits removing "Staff" authors, you might want to comment at Help talk:Citation Style 1#‎Procedure when author is "Staff" or its subsection Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about bot edits. --Bejnar (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GoingBatty said: Let's please continue the discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Procedure_when_author_is_.22Staff.22 and I will be happy to take whatever action is agreed upon there. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical deletion request by the same sock puppet who you just blocked. Possible to close it? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that an admin has voted to delete, probably not, but you can link to the SPI. --Rschen7754 03:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking up New Jersey Route 139 and I noticed a minor edit you made regarding the Alternate Name Field Box removing State Highway. Now, it's not that big a deal because times can change and so do the rules, however that was put in back in around 2007/2008, way before any alteration or evolution of rules you may have established between 2007/2008-2013 went into effect. Using the reasoning "rm abuse of alt name field" given the age of the edit is very haphazard. After all, how can a 5 year old edit be considered "Abuse" when new rules were not established at the time of the edit? There a lot of edits throughout Wikipedia that are more than 5 years old before any new rules would have gone into effect, so how can they be an act "Abuse" when that Editor was applying rules correctly of that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.44.35 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, disallowing that particular use of the alternate name field goes back into at least 2009, if not all the way back to 2007. --Rschen7754 18:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Mohammad Khilji.

Notifying you due to your prior investigation of related case.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll get my evidence heavily trimmed today. I just got carried away, but that's no excuse as I use to give people identical messages.

No problem. --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, regarding the return of User:Betacommand as User:Werieth, it's you who is barking up the wrong tree. Technical evidence has nothing to do with this - as the account creation/timing evidence in the SPI report have already shown, Betacommand was experienced enough to know exactly how to avoid his illegitimate return to editing being detected by technical means. That is not to say he cannot be blocked under WP:DUCK, as you well know. The issue here is why are so many admins/SPI clerks/checkusers dismissing what is a very very big pile of convincing behavioural evidence that such a block is well overdue, simply because they don't like the way it's being reported? What happened to WP:NOTBURO? If you've seen some unusual things about Werieth, then they're unlikely to be explained by idiots like Reaper Eternal pretending that it's nothing, that I'm just a troll. If your emails have been ignored or blown off, then it's probably because the cover up goes higher than I first thought. Incompetence aside, there's a few more nefarious reasons why some admins, clerks and checkusers would not want Betacommand's return to be discovered. It's up to you really, are you part of the problem, or not? Because make no mistake, Werieth is Betacommand, and he is going to be discovered, whether it takes years or not (and remember, we are talking about a user who is such an experienced WP:GAMEr he managed to keep editing for years after people started first talking about a community ban due to the many and varied issues with his editing) Vector Informal (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as he has his talk page protected, can you copy the following to

What a load of arrogant, egotistical, crap. What the hell does it matted who I am as to whether or not you can be bothered to investigate this issue? I and others have given you a very long list of very good reasons to believe why the notoriously disruptive user Betacommand has returned and is now making thousands of edits, in violation of a well earned ban. Call it NOTBURO, call it IAR, call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is, if you cared at all about Wikipedia, you would be taking such allegations seriously, no matter who is reporting it. The charge can either be proven, or disproven, regardless of who is making the report. The only thing you need to "consider" here is how highly you value your own reputation, because when this eventually comes out, as it will, what are you going to say in your defence for being part of the reason why it took so long? The increasingly long list of people who have tried to cover this up by diverting attention away from the allegations and onto me, includes some admins whose own COI in the matter can be shown with a single diff it's that obvious (including the one who kicked off this section, hoping to catch me). The only word for it is corrupt. They have put their own interests ahead of the project. Do you really want your own failure act to be compared with their attempts to cover it up? Do you really want people wondering whether the reason you did absolutely nothing at all about these allegations was something more than just incompetence? Vector Informal (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You're accusing someone of abusing multiple accounts... while you yourself are abusing multiple accounts. Do you not see the problem here? --Rschen7754 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"If you feel there is a case against Werieth, you need to stand up for it yourself."   —

(talk)

20:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to report new manifestations of the Werieth/Betacommand sockpuppets? Surely there must be an existing SPI, but I cannot find it. I keep getting talk page comments by these socks.[61] I have started deleting them as soon as I figure out what they are

without reading further[62] in the hope that eventually he will grow tired of shouting into an empty hall and go away. --Guy Macon (talk

) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean the ones that are anti-Werieth/Betacommand, I assume... I'm not aware of a SPI, but one could probably be started. With that being said, the only purpose of an SPI would be to run a CU, or we risk running into DENY issues. I'm not sure if one has ever been done or not. --Rschen7754 18:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I as thinking more on the line of:

[1] New sock posts about Werieth Betacommand

[2] I add the sock to "suspected sockpuppets of [Insert Sockmaster's name here]

[3] Administrator blocks sock.

No need for CU in this case; anyone showing up on my talk age ranting about Werieth and Betacommand clearly passes the

WP:DUCK test. --Guy Macon (talk

) 22:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be SPI. But CU would be helpful: it could find sleeper accounts, block the underlying IP if possible, and/or block any proxies used, if that was the case. --Rschen7754 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. Should I file an SPI, and if so, what username should I use as the sockmaster? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say only when an account needs to be blocked. Unfortunately, finding the "oldest" account is nearly impossible by now, so any would suffice. --Rschen7754 05:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the guidance. (Unwatching page now) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This time I wasn't being an idiot. When I filed, no SPIs on this editor were showing on the main page, nor were they showing a few minutes after I filed mine and discovered there were others. I did check as I'd planned to file on on Honkeytonknightmare. Slow bot I presume (I thought at first maybe not working at all).

I didn't actually look at who filed the case pretty closely, it's just a common mistake that takes some time to fix. I apologize if I reacted a bit too strongly. --Rschen7754 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. I really have to admire your energy working as an ArbCom clerk and at SPI.

talk

) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Route 79, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oak Grove, California (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I find it very nice how not so long after I register and make an edit, you come over and posts a welcome and a few tips on my talk page. Thank you for being so helpful and kind! I will make sure to read all of the tips that you have posted on my talk page.

Thanks Thelaststraw3 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)thelaststraw3

Hi, I should want to clear up something. It is easy to view my checkuser request as being retaliatory because he also filed a checkuser request against me, but it was truly motivated by actual concern. Suspicion may or may not have been merited (I think it was), but it certainly wasn't retaliation of any kind. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are completely unbiased in such a matter... riiiight? --Rschen7754 21:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I do have a bias, but I didn't let it creep in. Me filing that request may have looked wrong though. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of

Thanks! I have this and 5 other FAs in the queue waiting, and I'm fairly busy now, so I'll probably just wait for a bit. --Rschen7754 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Saw this on an SPI page that you commented on requesting more info. Looks like someone vandalized a template? (I believe the notification of "requesting checkuser" has an issue) GRUcrule (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I see that you recused, but I'm wondering if you could tell me if there's a template I can use for notifying named parties? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's on step 4 of the

WP:A/R/C instructions. --Rschen7754

19:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Savesgypsy/Editnotice includes a block notice placed by you on behalf of Arbcom — seemingly this user is a reincarnation of someone you've blocked as part of an arbitration remedy. Just thought you might find it funny, especially if you try to edit his talk page (and might want to do something about it), rather than blocking the user myself. The user's third edit is rather funny, so I had to be slightly absurdist/overly bureaucratic when undoing the edit. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. I have a hunch, but I'm flagging down a CU. --Rschen7754 04:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not who I thought it was, but it's been taken care of. --Rschen7754 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was so afraid I'd get an edit conflict at ANI while attempting to decline the db-attack; I can't remember the last time I had more fun writing an edit summary. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I must have removed That by accident, I wasn't even aware I had done anything. my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.177.135 (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why have you closed it? Why should it matter that the four accounts are blocked? Do I need to have an active user harassing myself or Zarbon for this case to be looked at? And for all we know there are sleeper accounts and last I checked that was a valid reason to use checkuser on someone who's already this prolific with sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But without any evidence to justify a CU, and without evidence that there could be sleepers, a CU cannot be done. --Rschen7754 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence was at the other case that I linked to but it was opened under the wrong sockmaster.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I did not find the evidence as presented very convincing, and apparently Mark Arsten did not either. --Rschen7754 08:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark Arsten has been helping me deal with this guy for months now. He only closed it because someone decided to file it under the wrong sockmaster's name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Center Line: Winter 2013

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features 2013 in review The Moon is rising: our Lua progress so far Looking ahead to 2014 The Maple Syrup Report	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OH, PA, UT, WA, and WV
WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf11) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on January 16. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on January 28, and all Wikipedia wikis on January 30 (calendar).
• You can now see relatively recent results on special pages like Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:UncategorizedPages or Special:WantedCategories. They were disabled before because they were very slow. The results are now updated once a month. [75]
• As of January 16, you can make and use guided tours on the Asturian, Farsi and Russian Wikipedias. If you want this tool on your wiki, you need to translate it and ask in Bugzilla. [76] [77]
• You can give comments on an idea to have a fixed toolbar at the top of wiki pages. [78]
• You can watch a video to learn how to report problems in Bugzilla. [79]

VisualEditor news

• In the toolbar, the menu to edit the styles (like bold, italic, etc.) now has a down arrow (). The order of the Insert menu has also changed a little.
• You can now edit <gallery /> tags with a very basic tool. [80]
• You can now see a help page about keyboard shortcuts in the page menu. [81]
• When you change categories, you will now see them when you save the page. [82]
• When you edit templates, you will now see the parameters in the right order. The ones that you must add have a star (*). [83] [84]
• The page will now be saved faster, thanks to a new way of coding the text that sends 40% less text to the servers. [85]
• Your wiki can ask to test a new tool to edit TemplateData. [86]

Problems

• There was a problem with search on the English and German Wikipedias between January 6 and January 14. You could not see new pages and changes in search results. [87]
• There were "pool timeouts" errors on several wikis on January 13; it was caused by a code change that was made to fix another problem. [88]
• On January 17, Bugzilla and Wikimedia Labs were broken for about 20 minutes due to network problems. IRC channels with recent changes (irc.wikimedia.org) were broken for about two hours. [89]

Future software changes

• If you have removed JavaScript in your web browser, you will soon be able to see the orange bar saying that you have new messages. If you have changed how the bar looks with a gadget, you may need to change the gadget again. [90] [91]
• You will soon be able to add a given Flickr user to a blacklist so that their files can't be uploaded using UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons and other wikis. [92]
• You will see a warning when you try to delete a page included in at least one other page. [93]
• You will so longer see disambiguation pages in Special:LonelyPages. [94] [95]

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

10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rschen, did you mean to leave this for Sandstein, or for Darkness Shines? Zad68 20:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I did mean to leave it there, as it was Sandstein's action that was being appealed. --Rschen7754 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks and sorry for the bother. Zad68 21:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember that guy who was chasing you off a certain Nationalist, POV-pushing set of road articles? He seems a repeat offender. I wouldn't want to be accused of "hound" behavior but he seems to make a habit of skirting sourcing and other policies to serve the proper portrayal of his particular axe to grind. I didn't have a great reception from some admins, but I do think the point can be made that this person is a bad actor who is not abiding by the good faith guidelines. Andrevan@ 07:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been following his edits lately, but probably, yes. --Rschen7754 07:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You mind confirming if these socks are all actual socks of the sockmaster? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not a CU, so I can't, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 18:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the frivolous Sock Puppet report. I am sorry to have wasted everyone's time, I truly am. It was not my intention. I seem to have misunderstood the process. If somebody would be so kind as to visit my talk page and suggest how I should best proceed about this IP editor, I would really appreciate it. Thank you all for your time, and again I apologize for the trouble. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this worked correctly. Isn't it supposed to leave a link to the archived case page? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(tps) The page just needed to be

purged. ​—DoRD (talk

)​ 13:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have lived in the East Bay for over 40 years and am well versed in what things are commonly called. I drive for a living, so I know the names of interchanges. I listen the the radio and hear what traffic reporters call things. When I listen to the KSFO traffic report, they refer to the distribution structure as 'the maze' and they call the Macarthur Maze, 'Macarthur Maze'. Go figure.

The Bay Bridge Distribution Structure is commonly referred to as 'The Maze' There are a few reporters who mistakenly call the interchange by the wrong name, from time to time. This interchange was built in the 1930's, long before General Douglas Macarthur was a household name.

The Macarthur Maze has, since its construction in the 1970's referred to the interchange officially known as the 'Macarthur Maze'. It is named for General Douglas Macarthur,the Macarthur Freeway which runs through it, and Macarthur Boulevard, which parallels it. Pretty much everybody, (save for some young people) call it the Macarthur Maze to distinguish it from 'The Maze'.

I can find NO reference, prior to the mid 1990's of anybody mistaking these two interchanges.

I made the corrections to the 'Macarthur Maze' page because it is both inaccurate and causes confusion with another location. If you insist that Wikipedia have correct information, then I will stop correcting the incorrect information that you keep reverting to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 946towguy (talk • contribs) 08:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read

WP:OR - original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Rschen7754

09:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)