User talk:Watchover: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:56, 5 January 2010

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 is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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]

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]

Help

For help with this template, please post a comment on the template talk page with a {{reply to}} one or more of the previous editors.

Administrator help needed

Ask your question below.
If the issue requires immediate attention or input from many administrators, please go to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents instead.
If you want to edit a fully protected page, please use the edit request wizard or {{edit fully-protected}} instead. If you want an administrator to move a page, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. If the page needs repair from cut-and-paste moves, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
If other users can help, please use the template {{help me}} instead.
Wikipedia's Live Help IRC is notified when this template is used. Alternatively, you can join the IRC channel directly.

When help has been offered, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

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]

Unblock

This user is asking that her autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Watchover (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

IP address: 121.218.162.241 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: Sarah (talk • blocks)
Block message:

[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Watchover}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Sarah | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover</nowiki> | 3=121.218.162.241 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=121.218.162.241 | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover</nowiki> | 3=Sarah | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=121.218.162.241 | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watchover</nowiki> | 3=Sarah | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 No worries. Needed to be done anyway; you provided a nice catalyst! [[User:Frickeg|Frickeg]] ([[User talk:Frickeg|talk]]) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
-==[[Mike Rann]], Affair allegations==
-Waiting for you all, who is going to be the first.... [[User:Watchover|Watchover]] ([[User talk:Watchover|talk]]) 11:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 == Nathan Rees Resignation Section ==