User talk:Tbo 157/Archives/2007/October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Laughing Joker

I've noticed that you have an open case for this user as a sockpuppeteer; I was about to start a new case myself. I'd appreciate your help, if possible. There's another username and an IP address to add to the list. I've posted a message about it to the admin who has banned Laughing Joker, and as it contains the relevant information, I'll just paste it here (note that it is written with references directly to the admin).

There are multiple users who are persistently changing this text on Mary (mother of Jesus):

People who are neither Christian nor Muslim generally doubt that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. In the second century, the polemicist Celsus (recorded in Origen's Contra Celsum 1.28-32) claimed that Mary had relations with a Roman soldier and then married Joseph who protected her from the harsh Jewish laws of the time which would have sentenced her to death by stoning for such an act.[1]

To something along these lines (some edits change one or more aspects of it, but this is the general "outcome" which seems apparent):

Many generally doubt that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. In the second century, the polemicist Celsus (recorded in Origen's Contra Celsum 1.28-32) stated that Mary had in fact had sex with a Roman soldier, then married Joseph who protected her from being stoned to death.[2]

The problem with these changes are numerous. First, it is clear that "many" is misleading term, and its replacement has not been supported by any sort of source. The original phrasing isn't perfect, but it's much more accurate. Secondly, this user has an obsession with specifying the term "had sex", for whatever reason. It should be noted that "had sex" is no more specific than "had relations", and additionally, the latter phrasing more accurately depicts the biblical claim quoted in the sentence prior to the text shown above (additionally, an earlier section already details this, stating clearly that Jesus was claimed to be an illegitimate child by Celsus- therefore making this paragraph somewhat redundant as it is). Maybe the individual gets a rise out of the change to "had sex"; I'm not in favor of censorship, but the usage here of "had sex" seems entirely unnecessary. As for the latter change, it has only been made once or twice, and is simply an inferior, less informative phrasing.

These changes have been made numerous times by 3 different users. Looking at the history, it would appear that this person is cycling between accounts to revert changes to his/her preferred version. It should be noted that there seems to be some cohesion between the usernames, as the changes occur consecutively (and always regarding this section); for example, when I'd explained my reversion of an anonymous user, one of the other users subsequently responded directly by incorporating both terms in a sloppy manner (again, the obsession with this terminology, I don't understand). Again, this example isn't strong in and of itself, but when considering the edit history on the page, it begins to look suspicious.

Two of the users, User:Joker828 and User:CptHowdy, were already suspected sock puppets of User:Laughing Joker. User:JokersWild1, the most persistent editor, seems to fit the bill as well (and as such, I've placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on his/her page). Looking at the edit history of these accounts makes it rather clear that they are, likely to be the same user, and at the very least, are working together unusually closely:

Now, it seems rather clear to me that Laughing Joker is at it with more puppets. Again, I'm posting this here, because of your own familiarity with the puppeteer, at least in that you banned him/her indefinitely. Do you think that this is sufficient information to bring up a case?--C.Logan 02:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me and updating me with relevant information. I will add the relevant information you gave me to the sockpuppet case. It may be a good idea for us to watch the relevant articles to see if any additional suspicious accounts turn up. I may also, if necessary, contact User:ConfuciusOrnis, the user who originally spotted the accounts so we can collate as much evidence as possible. I will help in any way I can. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just realised that another case has been opened involving the same user at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246. An ip not mentioned here also seems to be listed. I will contact the relevant user here. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am the user who opened the case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246 after persistent changes to articles creationism and intelligent design. Constant warnings, yet no discussion ever. Just reversion. I noticed the similarities to other users such as CptHowdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 75.3.126.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Almost the exact same changes can be seen. Wisdom89 18:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that I have merged the contents of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246 into Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Laughing Joker so that it is easier to collate evidence and transclude the case into Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets when it is ready. Wisdom89, if you wish you can request for deletion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246 or you may wish to keep the page for whatever reason. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I will now transcude the case into WP:SSP. Other users may be able to give more evidence or provide useful comments. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Engineering project page expansion

It's been well over a month since the Engineering project was moved to Wiki space, but the main project page still looks incomplete to me. Any ideas for expansion and/or improvement? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

UAA

I am not the one who reported it, but are you kidding when you say "I don't see a problem with this username" for User:Dikwaad? - Rjd0060 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. It may just be me but I honestly don't see the problem with the username. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you aren't seeing it, but I think it would fall under the category "Usernames that include profanity, or obscenities, or references to genitalia or sexual slang". Anyways, I see you are in a current Editor Review. I am not going to make a formal comment but I agree with the two people who have made comments, and you will definitely make a good admin sometime in the near future, although since you don't see a problem with this user name, that is a slight concern. Good luck with your RfA (whenever it gets started) though. - Rjd0060 01:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
See here. User replied to your comment. - Rjd0060 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks for your comments. I have replied to the relevant users comments at WP:UAA. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I've made a reply there too, and no offense, but like you suggested, I think you may be the only one who hasn't heard the term. - Rjd0060 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, probably is an american term. Again, good luck with your future RfA. - Rjd0060 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your general comments and advice on this username concern. Happy Editing :).Tbo 157(talk) (review) 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw your last comment on the UAA page, and I want to make sure you know it was no inconvenience to anybody. No need to apologize. - Rjd0060 01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Canterberry & others

As one of the more active UK railway-related editors, just wanted to make you aware of this discussion at WP:AN. Canterberry has been indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry (personally, I think possibly a little harsh, given that the worse-offending Lucy-marie was only blocked for 72 hours), so there may be fallout on assorted railway-related pages & templates. — iridescent 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Tbo 157(talk) 15:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)