User talk:Watchover

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Watchover! I am Airplaneman and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Airplaneman ^talk 03:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

No worries. Needed to be done anyway; you provided a nice catalyst! Frickeg (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rees Resignation Section

Could you please check the votes I have entered here? Not Sure if they are correct. Not that politically knowledgeable. Thanks! Nathan Rees#Resignation --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email address is...

permissions-en at wikimedia.org, substitute @ for at. If they are released on the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, you have the choice of uploading them to en.wikipedia, which can only be used here, or commons.wikimedia, which can be used at any project. (eg French, German, wikisource, wikinews, etc)

Process is something like

Make sure the copyright holder understands the license. I suggest showing them [1] (and be grateful that we stopped using the GFDL for licensing... I can't believe we used to have to get people to read 15 pages of legalese to release a photo! :|)
Get their permission in writing (or like I said get them to do it on a hidden page on their website) to release the image under that licence. (Something like "I agree to release the image attached / the image at http://blah/blah.jpg under the Creative Commons 3.0 Share Alike license." Note it should not say "released to Wikipedia" as it is a general release)
Upload the image, and make sure the appropriate license is chosen.
Forward the permission email/letter, or the webpage address, to OTRS at the above address together with the exact filename of the image
A day or so later (there can be delays), one of the OTRS people will mark the image to say they have sighted the permission and it's in the correct form.

This is basically exactly what I did to get File:Colin_Barnett_(formal)_crop.jpg onto Wikipedia just days after his election as premier. It was emailed to me as an attachment in that case.

Takes a while to get one's head around the process (I've been here almost four years and I still have to think through each stage!) so feel free to ask for assistance if you need it. I may not know the answer to any queries but will definitely be able to find someone who does. Orderinchaos 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

...re the Rees/Keneally handover. A lot of the constitutional stuff really isn't well understood unfortunately, and a lot of people can't distinguish popular perception from legal reality. Reminds me of the issues that arose when the Labor government was defeated here in WA but it took 17 days to sort out who was the government, with some certainty after 8 days but a formal announcement in the Gazette taking quite some time to get going. Also when Rudd was elected in 2007, people thought as Howard had lost his seat he had lost his commission when he in fact didn't until he resigned it on (if I recall) 3 December. Orderinchaos 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

It's great to see others adding these too - keep it up! Some things to make it easier:

We don't mention children in infoboxes unless they're notable in some way.
Try using the constituency_MP parameter instead of office; that way you can just enter the seat (for example: constituency_MP = Bradfield) and the template will do the rest. It's also a good idea to fill in the parliament parameter after this (parliament = NSW) to clarify further.
Make sure the place names are working links. Victoria will take you to a disambiguation page; you need Victoria (Australia) to get to the state.

Hope this helps! Frickeg (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PM Table

Hi Watchover, When will you have this table finnished at Prime Ministers of Australia. i noticed Timeshift i winging cantwejustbefriends 04:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantwejustbefriends (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppetry

I got the result I *wasn't* hoping for at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watchover. It tells me that Cantwejustbefriends, who posted to you above as a supposedly different user, is confirmed as being you - and I note that the two accounts tag-team edit warred on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. That account has been blocked indefinitely.

Furthermore, it establishes a link (although only a "likely" one) with the account User:KAPITALIST88, who was indefinitely blocked yesterday for lying about image copyrights, and who both before and after their block showed rather an ugly personal side when it came to WP:NPA.

I am willing to assume good faith here with regards to the second linkage, but I think we (as in the Australian Politics editors) deserve an explanation as to what the hell is going on. I know that strange things can happen and people can get blamed for things that are not their doing on likely evidence - that's the nature of technical evidence. I also believe in general, apart from the recent incident, you generally have shown good faith in your dealings with us, and I recall our discussion about getting CC-licenced images in that vein. But I can't deny I am disappointed. Orderinchaos 22:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire reason for writing "I am willing to assume good faith" was because your general profile and that of Kapitalist are just so different that I actually got a shock when that result came back as it did. The two possibilities I had entertained were: 1. it was Kapitalist's - block it as a ban evading sock. 2. it was yours and had come out of heated editing - knock the account on the head, warn you, move on without socks. Either of these possibilities would have been reasonable ones. I hope you do not consider me as part of a "gang" - my main purpose here is to try and ensure editing proceeds smoothly on the politics articles and, although we sometimes disagree on either ideology or syntax, I have never doubted your good faith. Orderinchaos 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Watchover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

121.218.162.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Cantwejustbefriends". The reason given for Cantwejustbefriends's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: (using them to tag-t

Blocking administrator: Orderinchaos (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: It would be better for you to respond to the polite query above before any autoblocks are cleared. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I uploaded the template and was in the process of putting my response in I shall try again. Watchover (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Watchover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, Sorry about the wrong template and then not filling out my response (I was filling it out while the admin declined it). I log into my account through two different computers (work and home) and was unaware what was happening until I was somewhat rightfully accused of sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos. I can only explain on the admins first comments that my husband created an account (Cantwejustbefriends) whilst I was at work because I was on the phone ranting about other uses edits. he created the account and edited (three if I am correct) different pages not in my knowledge and unaware that Sockpuppetry even existed, hence, while I walked away from the computer for a period of time, he has logged on and defended something which I was editing (in good faith). When I got back and saw my talk page and realised what was happening, what could I do? nothing is the short answer, sit back and hope for the best or have to explain it at lenght so other editors who seem to be a gang could through stones at me while I defend myself, alone. Orderinchaos's comments that I am somehow connected to Kapitalist88 are deeply offending and I hope, for that editors sake, it wasn't a lie just an honest mistake on their behalf. Compare both mine and Kapitalist88's edits if you could pick the neutral one Im quiet sure I would be the pick. Looking at that editors talk page and mine, I think that alone makes it quiet clear that I have nothing to do with he/she on Wiki or in "real life". I hope the right conclusion can be made after my response. Regards, Watchover (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not blocked directly. Sarah 10:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Watchover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

1718081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: decline for now, see discussion below.— Sarah 10:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Watchover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can anyone tell me the exact reason I have been blocked? I have answered all questions and have always been a constructive editor and it appears that something is going wrong in administration or by adminship

Decline reason:

I, like Sarah, am wholly unimpressed by your dodges below. Barring you coming (reasonably) clean, I do not think it in the best interests of the project to unblock you at the present time. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 10:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Watchover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I log into my account through two different computers (work and home) and was unaware what was happening until I was somewhat rightfully accused of sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos. I can only explain on the admins first comments that my husband created an account (Cantwejustbefriends) whilst I was at work because I was on the phone ranting about other uses edits. he created the account and edited (three if I am correct) different pages not in my knowledge and unaware that Sockpuppetry even existed, hence, while I walked away from the computer for a period of time, he has logged on and defended something which I was editing (in good faith). When I got back and saw my talk page and realised what was happening, what could I do? nothing is the short answer, sit back and hope for the best or have to explain it at lenght so other editors who seem to be a gang could through stones at me while I defend myself, alone. Orderinchaos's comments that I am somehow connected to Kapitalist88 are deeply offending and I hope, for that editors sake, it wasn't a lie just an honest mistake on their behalf. Compare both mine and Kapitalist88's edits if you could pick the neutral one Im quiet sure I would be the pick. Looking at that editors talk page and mine, I think that alone makes it quiet clear that I have nothing to do with he/she on Wiki or in "real life". I hope the right conclusion can be made after my response. Regards, Watchover (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the previous unblock requests, the discussion below, the SPI case, and the ANI discussion, and cannot unblock at this time. The checkuser data is of some concern, and your response to it has been a resounding "Nuh-uh". The technical factor (sharing an IP address or a range of IP addresses) can be explained in several ways (unknown co-worker editing, for example), though it is more difficult to address the similar edit patterns (articles and topics), lack of overlapping edits (indicating that one account was active only when the other was not), and similarities in tone noted below. All of these concerns can be addressed via e-mail, if privacy is a concern. But the bigger issue, to me at least, is your reaction to Sarah's attempts to advocate on your behalf. As Orderinchaos noted, your request was a simple one on its face, but complicated by the lack of assuming good faith on your part. Sarah gains nothing by continuing your block - and, indeed, she specifically noted that your block was temporary, to be lifted when everything was sorted out. Despite that, your reaction was less than impressive. If you can discuss the concerns below, and at ANI, in a reasonable and civil manner, I have no doubt that you can be unblocked - but we aren't there yet. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm going to review this request. In the meantime, though, I have corrected the timestamp on the most recent request (per this diff), and have restored the previous unblock requests that were inadvertantly removed when the most recent was posted. I note, also, that discussion is ongoing at WP:ANI; I didn't see a mention of that on this page, so I thought it wise to note for the record. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to answer any questions

I am happy to answer any questions from everyone besides User:Timeshift9. Please leave your nice comments below.

I will not comment on my exclusion of the above editor. Cheers, Watchover (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone familiar with the personalities, I have no problem with that request, it's a reasonable one. Orderinchaos 04:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchover, blocks on Wikipedia are about preventing disruption. I find your story above strange and convoluted enough to most likely be true, but what I want to know is, (1) is this going to happen again the next time you get pissed with people? Is he going to create socks to come and defend your honor again? Is this the type of thing he often does when you're upset or arguing with other people? I can accept your story once and consider giving you a second chance, but it concerns me that this may be what he routinely does when you're not getting along with people. Disputes happen here every day and I don't want to have to keep dealing with socks every time you're in a blue. Does he normally edit Wikipedia? (2) (a) Would you agree to editing terms that restrict you and [(b)he] from editing the same pages? (3) (a) If you look at the checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover, you will see that there is also some technical evidence linking you to User:KAPITALIST88. (b) Are you sure this user also isn't your husband? (c) Do you have any explanation for there being any technical connection between you and KAPITALIST88? (d) Is it possible it is a work colleague or someone else you share a computer with? (e) Have you been discussing Wikipedia with other people? I've declined your unblock request for now but if you can address these issues we mostly likely will be able to help you. Sarah 10:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your superfluous response Sarah. I am going to break it up a bit so it is not so intensive :)

1 (a) Is this going to happen again the next time you get pissed with people? (b) Is he going to create socks to come and defend your honor again? (c) Is this the type of thing he often does when you're upset or arguing with other people? (Comment) I can accept your story once and consider giving you a second chance, (d) but it concerns me that this may be what he routinely does when you're not getting along with people.(Comment) Disputes happen here every day and (e) I don't want to have to keep dealing with socks every time you're in a blue. (f) Does he normally edit Wikipedia?

(a) No, not when it is within my control.

(b) As above.

(c) Far to personal and private for Wikipedia.

(d) First time it has ever happened, not his fault he didn't know Wiki guidelines. Also links to the above answer c.

(e) First time it has ever happened.

(f) Never, he created an account 'Cantwejustbefriends'and edited around five different articles, that account will never be active again as a sock.

(2) Would you agree to editing terms that restrict you and [(b) he] from editing the same pages?

(a) I will not have any restrictions on this account.

(b) As per answer 1 (f). It depends on his plans.

(3) (a) If you look at the checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover, you will see that there is also some technical evidence linking you to User:KAPITALIST88. (b) Are you sure this user also isn't your husband? (c) Do you have any explanation for there being any technical connection between you and KAPITALIST88? (d) Is it possible it is a work colleague or someone else you share a computer with? (e) Have you been discussing Wikipedia with other people?

(a) I am blocked, I cannot view it. The technical 'evidence' is either misinterpreted or wrong.

(b) Please, you have read my above response to the temporary block. I do not know of or anything about this former editor. The check says 'likely', it is tainting garbage that people are using to stigma my reputation.

(c) No, I cannot view the diatribe therefore cannot comment other than to say it is false.

(d) No

(e) Yes, but I will not go into detail as it is far to private.

Sorry if it comes accross a tad surly, but they should be assumed under good faith and your questions were a bit superfluous. I have a question for you User:Sarah, when you refer to "we" who are you refering to? :) Cheers, Watchover (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You can view the page. Click on the link and see. Being blocked only prevents editing, not reading. The "we" refers to the administrative team reviewing unblock requests. Sarah 13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says likely. Where do I view the actual evidence to support me having anything to do with Kapitalist88? Will this be all, Have I fully answered all of your questions. Watchover (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information was obtained by an approved CheckUser using their tool which examines underlying edits on the database - because it's non public information they don't disclose *what* the information is. However, I think it's fair to request a more clear answer and I have done so. Orderinchaos 13:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, do you want me to further comment on the possibility of a connection between myself and Kapitalist88? Watchover (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Yes, it found a likely connection which means there's a degree of technical connection between the accounts. I was prepared to extend good faith on the basis of your initial unblock request but I find your responses since then wholly unsatisfactory and vague to say the least so I'm not prepared to unblock you. Sarah 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You connection is wrong and I sence a strong possibility that you are not being neutral in you above comment Sarah. Unsatisfactory, what more could I give you, an essay regarding each individual question, all thirteen of them? What more could you possibly want? I seems as if you have overstepped your boundaries Sarah and are using your adminship to tease and taunt me. I am not one to throw a stone, but you have enough time to comment about each indvidual question I have answered before I will consider taking it further. Assume and consider good faith Watchover (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that is simply not true and it is absurd to say the least. I was honestly trying to help you because I believed you and I was asking you questions to try to help you reassure reviewing admins that there would be no further disruption or problems with this type of thing going forward. We block on the basis of disruption so if there's not likely to be further disruption, the block becomes unnecessary, thus I was asking you questions to try to help you show the block was not necessary. I suggested you agree to unblock conditions relating to you and your husband editing the same pages so that you could demonstrate good faith and because that is our general policy regarding people using the same connection. I was actively trying to help you. However because your responses were basically vague non-answers I'm not prepared to unblock you at this time and the account is blocked pending further clarification from the checkuser regarding the likely connection between this account and Kapitalist88. Sarah 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but I do not believe your humble story. It is clear to me that you want me to take the same path as seen on User:KAPITALIST88's talk page put I will respectfully decline your invitation. I can only hope that other admins can see through your attempt to take me down to that users level, and that my previous sock record, Which I must stress is none, is not overlooked in an attempt to remove a constructive editor from the Wikipedia community. I did have a deal of respect (believe it or not) for you until your first comment that I provided unsatisfactory answers, then I reliased that it was just bate. (I will be appealing your block). Regards and always assume good faith Watchover (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that had really been Sarah's intention (which it clearly wasn't in my view), wouldn't simply blocking you and ignoring all attempts to communicate have been a far easier strategy? You are of course free to appeal the block, but any unblocking admin is likely to want unblock conditions similar to what Sarah has described (i.e. some sort of undertaking). I am also waiting for the checkuser clarification - that should come soon hopefully. Orderinchaos 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your ABF violations are truly astounding. I am completely shocked by your accusations and have never encountered such blatant assumptions of bad faith when actually feeling sympathetic towards someone and trying to help them. I don't think I've ever encountered you before and looking at your contribs, we seem to edit in different areas so I have no idea why you would have this blatant assumption of bad faith against me. Sarah 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, why not just say that is what you want? If you wanted to help me you would give me opitions. User:Cantwejustbefriends will not be contesting the block and will not edit on wikipedia again. I haven't done anything wrong, User:Orderinchaos's check user clarification will prove (because there is no connection) that I have nothing to do with any other account, other than the one the I have admitted to and as I have said above, will not be activated and was creatred beyond my knowledge. What more could be possibly reasonable? Also, exactly, I dont have anything to do with you, all along it seems you have been on the offensive and I, naturally on the defensive. Hopefully it is just a clash of personalities. Watchover (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The only thing I could be said to "want" from you/with regard to you is for you to cease your attacks, false and unsubstantiated accusations and your assumptions of bad faith. Given we have no history at all, I can't understand your aggression or why you would instantly assume that I'm trying to do something untoward. It's very sad and unfortunate that that is your first reaction to an admin responding to your unblock template. I responded to your request as an uninvolved unblock administrator, reviewed the block and asked questions geared at attempting to assist you present a reasonable case that this was an aberration and that disruption would not be ongoing so I could reasonably and justifiably unblock you. I'm not sure what "options" you expect me to give you but the only policy-based way to get unblocked is to show us that you understand the block and convince us it is no longer necessary. While your original request got my attention because it appeared open and honest, sincere and believable and made me want to assist you in being unblocked, I do not find your repeated blatant assumptions of bad faith after that or your mostly closed yes/no/refuse-to-answer type responses to questions adequate enough to justify my unblocking you or sufficient to overcome the combined result of the confirmed and likely checkuser and the focus on the same articles and subject matter by Watchover and KAPITALIST88. Unblock terms are pretty standard here and saying "I will not have any restrictions on this account" in response to a question about demonstrating some good faith by agreeing to unblock terms also doesn't bode well or reassure reviewing admins. Since your attacks and assumptions of bad faith and your strange response to an uninvolved admin responding to your unblock request have raised more questions and doubts, I do not feel comfortable removing your block. Your over-the-top reaction has also left me wondering if you have used another account prior to this one that I may have dealt with you as an administrator with, because your response to me has been extremely bizarre to say the least. I also noted your comment starting "I did have a deal of respect..." which also strikes me as bizarre given there has never been any contact between me and this Watchover account and I don't even edit in the same area as this account has been editing in. Sarah 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been in this situation before and have never dealt or edited with you before but clearly your judgement toward me is now respectfully tainted -respectfully- I would like to ask for another administrator to start off fresh in my appeal to be unblocked to continue my good work. Thanks for your assistance Sarah, I pray that this will not tarnish any relations we might have when I return to editing. Regards Watchover (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me the clincher was (above): "(2) Would you agree to editing terms that restrict you and [(b) he] from editing the same pages? (a) I will not have any restrictions on this account." In re-reading, it's possible you've misunderstood what Sarah was meaning as you have divided it into two questions when it was asked as one. I might rephrase it: "Would you agree to editing terms that ensure that the two of you do not edit the same articles as each other?" It's now well past the point where I could unblock on an answer to this (this decision would have to be taken by an uninvolved admin) but if we could get that one point cleared up, I think that is the biggest obstacle in the way. Orderinchaos 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there will never be another, just myself. Thank you for your faith, to be further honest I dont think it is appropriate to comment about situations in my 'real world' because cyber space and the 'real world' I think are sometimes important to seperate, but he will not be editing Wiki again, trust me, he's in the dog house.

What do you propose regarding fixing the problem of a likelyhood between myself and that former editor which I think you are aware of my angst to further (no distance anyway) from. Any questions you would like answered about your submittion in SPI=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watchover? Any at all. Watchover (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That 'yes' is a big step forward in my opinion. I don't honestly know what to do from here (this is uncharted territory for me!) - usually these things are sorted out at the time and you would have been unblocked days ago. As Sarah says above the key purpose of a block is to prevent disruption, you've said "yes, because there will never be another" in response to the original question, and the second account is blocked indef. As long as an independent reviewer agrees, I think we can call this situation history very soon.

As an aside - if this does proceed to an unblock, I would hope you would see fit to apologise to Sarah for some of the comments made, as she's proceeded in my view with the best of good faith and proper practice in a somewhat difficult situation. You can understand it's difficult for admins when for obvious privacy protection reasons the checkusers only give us an indication rather than a reading of what they are seeing. Orderinchaos 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kapitalist88 & Sockpuppetry

Can someone explain plainly what is going on other that the two previous admins as seen above? The check done by these or other editors is wrong. As a voulunteer, I do have a right to know what is going on and why I have been unfairly treated or pinned to someone that has nothing to do with me. Watchover (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just clarify once again (as it's been suggested I might) that I have not seen any private information or performed any checks - all I know is what is publicly known on the SPI page, namely that a checkuser did a check and got a particular result. The checkuser who conducted it provided an additional fact which aids in interpretation of the "Likely" but makes the situation no clearer than it was. Orderinchaos 10:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, Can someone please explain what has happened regarding above. Thanks :) Watchover (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet investigation found that you have been editing using multiple accounts, for which you were blocked per normal procedures (particularly given that the alternate accounts have been used to violate Wikipedia's rules). The admins who have responded to your requests for unblocking have not been satisfied with the explanations you have provided for this or assurances that it won't happen again. As I was involved in blocking the Kapitalist88 account I won't action your latest request for unblock, but the deceptive and rude behavior conducted by that account appears to be in line with your evasions and rude comments here (though not to such an extreme level). The fact that all three accounts have edited similar articles provides further evidence that a single person is behind them. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Well they haven't asked for assurances, but I can swear that User: Cantwejustbefriends will not be reactivated or used again, and will not be used to edit. I am happy for it to be blocked. Rude is not correct, I have been sincere in giving them the straight forward truth, and when told that it is not believable, I am not told what more is wanted. I am not evading anything, anyone ask me whatever they want, I will tell them. The account Cantwejustbefriends I have admitted is a sock to this one (non intentional). Im not bothered with what Kapitalist88 has done in his edits, is is high speculation that he/ she is likely to be a sock of mine (which there was and only will ever be one which is the rightfully blocked Cantwejustbefriends). I can only give a guarantee the Kapitalist88 is not associated with myself in anyway shape or form in editing wikipedia and beyond. Watchover (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 'high speculation' that you are likely to be the same editor as Kapitalist88: this is a finding from a checkuser inquiry. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be flawed, that is why I was asking way back what is going on and have been adamant and truthfull in denying that I am connected with that editor. What do I have to do to prove this? Could someone please explain what they want from me to be unblocked. Watchover (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm canceling the templates; they are not intended for this use. Please use {{unblock}}. Non-CU admins do not have access to the checkuser data. If you really are not the other user, your best chance may be to ask another CU to double-check J.delanoy (talk · contribs)'s results. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if it comes up with the same boggas result? -Which isn't true Watchover (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, any CU Admins that come across this talk page please as said above, to prove my innocence, double check my checkuser data/scan @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watchover Cheers. This is the best I can do User:Timotheus Canens, The block prevents me from asking anyone. Watchover (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked a second checkuser - one of the best with a very good track record, and someone I've relied on in the past when unsure about a situation - to review the results about two days ago. However, I haven't heard back from him. I will follow that up. Orderinchaos 06:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I got a couple of independent eyes on this (with some effort) but the opinions tendered weren't heading towards an unblock. I have pasted them below. Neither are from Australia or involved in Australian topics (which also applies to the original checkuser).

I don't see anything that inspires me to assume good faith in this case. When you had opened the SPI report, you noted, "Watchover's and Kapitalist's edits are almost mutually exclusive to a scary degree - one edits for a few days, then stops, and the other one edits in the interval." That sounds very much like a good hand/bad hand tactic which is very common for sockpuppet masters (see WP:ILLEGIT). This, combined with unwarranted attacks on people at the talk page just screams out "sock" to me. Checkusers aren't perfect and I've seen a couple of times when data was misinterpreted but it's very rare and my gut tells me that this editor is pulling our leg. I would decline a further unblock. -- Atama頭 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clerked the SPI case and have followed the discussion on the talkpage; my opinion on any unblock changed over time, as things with Sarah progressed, and I agree with Atama that an unblock doesn't seem called for at this point. Maybe point them to WP:OFFER. Nathan^T 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own view (as stated two sections above) still stands but the chances of finding an independent admin who'll agree with me and actually do it (as stated before, I can't do it myself) appear to be diminishing. Orderinchaos 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this only keeps getting weirder...

Right, I'm now confident based on new information that Kapitalist88 is a completely separate person. A second checkuser has looked at the same evidence and found differently. With that new information I can also see how the original finding was come to, but it appears to have been a red herring.

However, we have a new problem. It turns out that the evidence which excludes Kapitalist from the picture is that you have an undisclosed relationship with another account - User:Stravin. I had not thought of this until today (it was actually brought to my attention by someone else) but it now appears obvious. In fact, if that is true, then this account is the sock and that account is the master.

Is there anything else you wish to let us know about? Orderinchaos 00:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we're done here. Nathan^T 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :/ I'll admit I actually feel like a bit of an idiot for extending good faith not 24 hours ago. Orderinchaos 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, there's not really anything that can be said or done with this level of gaming and disruption. You shouldn't feel foolish, though, Orderinchaos. I also initially felt sympathy towards Watchover but things took too much of a weird direction for me with the bizarre reaction to me reviewing the block and the strange similarities in editing and focus on the same special interest articles. All we can do is assume good faith until presented with evidence that someone is not operating in good faith and that is exactly what you did, so you have absolutely nothing to feel foolish about. If anyone should feel foolish it's Stravin/Watchover/etc for playing silly little games and taking advantage of the kindness of others. Sarah 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, this only keeps getting weirder, now another user has been thrown into this. Anther user I don't have much to do with, other than it seems we edit some of the same articles. What is the undisclosed relationship? I will enduldge some in letting you know that I do work in an MP's electoral office, but I have never edited their article for reasons that you would all be aware to notify me. I DO NOT know the real identity of User:Stavarvin other than reading the talk page a while back, someone said he/ she worked in the office of Victor Dominello. How come if my personal IP is blocked, Stavarin was not blocked? Lookiing through he/ she's contributions Orderinchaos is correct, in fact I mentioned on my user page that I live on the Central Coast/ Hunter region. And Stavrain edits Sydney/ North Shore based articles? Hmmm, I am not based across The Hunter, Central Coast, Warringah and Frenches Forrest all at once. How can other editors immediately assume that I am Kapitalist88 and even when I fight to prove I am not (some have even pointed out we dont even edit the same accounts and are far from simmilar) and then switch their mind to another account that if there were strong links, would have shown up on the first Checkuser scan. It makes me sick people keep jumping at the possibilities and not even ask for a comment. Where did this even come from. I DO NOT know Stavarin and were not editing from the same computer. If I were a sock of Stavarins, wouldn't that account have been blocked because of sharing IP's -because I DO NOT know Stavarin. So I was the 'Sock master' now another user is. If Savirin were the main sockmaster account why hasn't he/ she been contesting the block? Because Cantwejustbefriends (- which has been rightfully blocked) and I are not sock puppets of that account. Bloody heck, why is this happening to me. Do you all want me to start using inappropriate language like Kapitalist88? (no needed for a further block to protect this page, honestly) it just isn't right, one second im not and there is a strong case that im not, and another editor shows up and says 'oh, likely, it has to be her' now another check has come up with a totally dfferent user to that of Kapitalist -totally- what is this pin the tale on the donkey until it sticks. Well im going to fight this because its not going to stick because the good and just always prevail. Another comment, why aren't they, Kapitalist88 and Stavarin commenting or contesting? wouldn't they be objecting to being socks, if I were there sockmaster or sock wouldn't I be doing the same thing and contesting? It's just not adding up. Further in the evidence submitted by Orderinchaos, it says I have edited without logging in, that was way back when I first created my only account, this one, and keeped forgetting to log in. This is all bull and I want to get to the bottom of it to prove that I am innocent. It does not add up. I am going to open a new section about answering questions, but I will not contest the block until I have answered some new questions (I wont be red faced this time, promise). Thanks Watchover (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not answering questions ASAP, I wasn't on the computer. Orderinchaos, you have ever right to feel like a fool, how do you think I feel, I feel like im being played in someones unrightfull fantasy to keep wiki in one certain way. I went into discussion red faced and bit Sarah's head off, (which when I am unblocked I will acknowledge further) Then because of that everyone saw that and wasn't prepared to achnowledge there was something wrong, looking at now instead of the past. Nathan T, correct, we shouldn't still be here. I should be finnishing my personal goals on wiki (which I would love to be asked about) and you guys should be doing what you all want to do, not be here going around in circles. Watchover (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stravin account hasn't been active since 30 December so hasn't edited since this account was blocked giving no opportunity for him to be caught in the autoblock. Even if he had, it doesn't prove anything - he could use a public access, a friend of family member's internet connection etc. And if the account was autoblocked, he may have chosen not to say anything about it because at that point the Stravin account had not been identified and connected with these others. The checkuser who did the most recent check is very highly regarded as a checkuser and if she says "confirmed" you're really not going to convince anyone she's wrong without some pretty convincing evidence. Kapitalist88 and this account and Stravin have edited a lot of the same special interest articles and as the CU noted, you've both been editing from the same educational institution and quite possibly know each other. Perhaps KAPITALIST is one of your university friends. We've examined the three accounts with the WikiStalk tool and a spreadsheet and all three have crossover with articles that are very much special interest.The Stravin account didn't show up on the first checkuser because we didn't know about it so it wasn't checked. We only became aware of Stravin yesterday so Orderinchaos requested the new checkuser to compare Stravin to this account and KAPITALIST88. Prior to that, Stravin wasn't in the mix so wasn't even checked. We can't possibly know why Stravin hasn't contested it - as I said, the account hasn't been used since last year. Perhaps the account was abandoned in favour of this one? Perhaps it's a strategy? At this point, in light of the current checkuser, no admin is going to be happy to overturn the block without a pretty compelling and convincing explanation. I'm not sure that further discussion is likely to be of benefit to you unless there is such an explanation because the current checkuser by Alison is very compelling. Sarah 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes. There you go, I didn't even know that Stravin was male, your university comment, Kapitalist88 I don't think is educated at all, that user prefers words like "Queer", "F**K", "Trool", "Homosexual" and abbreviates. Where in Wikipedia have I so commonly. I think I have used some more better suited to a public area, Sydney University doesn't teach that. Thank god the second check user confirmed that one. I left uni with my doctrine in 1986 and haven't been back. The only thing I can think of is through Macquarie St Parliament, but I am quiet sure computers are all independent in some way, but as Tony Abbott says "S**t happens" -first time I have intentionally swore on Wikipedia, in fact, replaced a Senator's quote on Malcolm Turnbull's article from 'to f**cking sensitive' to replacing the UC, with **. Stravin I cannot speak for, I honestly cannot, I am desperately trying to find someone who knows of Stravin, Im on hold to Victor Dominello's office trying to figure it out. Stravin I haven't found to be a controversial figure through my editing (not on my radar) neither is anyone else in this whole discussion, just Orderinchaos, but I fully understand his/ her feelings, as I have expressed in the same way. I don't know why Stravin hasn't edited since late last year, I cannot speak for them. Im calling to compare IP's or anything that could differentiate the two of us. What strategy have I willingly played part in, have I reverted in Stravins favour before? or Cantwejustbefriends and Kapitalist88's? Military is another thing I edited Navy, Kapitalist88 was airforce. Stravin edits NSW MP's accounts, so do I, I just don't know what to say. I don't own articles like Stravin, I just up keep in events. Watchover (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions please

Murphy's Law: 'Nothing is as easy as it looks. Everything takes longer than you expect. And if anything can go wrong it will... at the worst possible moment'. Watchover (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]