User talk:Wellington Bay/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Wellington Bay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nixon Now, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Singularity42 (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm wrong, and if I am wrong, I hope it doesn't disuade your from editing. But there was enough here that I felt a check was needed. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Singularity42: If you felt bad and hoped you're wrong it's probably because my editing wasn't at all disruptive. No fighting, no edit wars, well researched and I hope well written content. The problem was block evasion, not with any actual content and the block evasion was because of a dispute over Doug Ford several years ago with editors who have either since been banned or penalised for how they behaved generally on wikipedia. In that case I was temp blocked, evaded, and then permabanned for evasion.

So what happens now? I've been blocked which is fine since I have been spending time here when I should be doing other things and due to Wikipedia's scorched earth policy 20 or so articles I created have been deleted. See here. No article I've created was subject to speedy deletion or an AFD or even a dispute. They were all well sourced. I was helping build the encyclopedia. So has my blocking (blocking of a constructive editor, aside from the original sin of block evasion) and the deletion of 20 or so historical articles help wikipedia or hurt it? Does it add to the sum of human knowledge or detract? Does this act of blocking and mass deletion defend Wikipedia from vandalism or degredation or is it just a game of whack-a-mole? Wellington Bay (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to go back to your original account and request an unblock and explain why you will edit productively. You can't create socks to evade the block and get around a block. Administrators need to review an unblock request - you can't just create new accounts unilaterally. You have pros and cons to your unblock request. The pro is that you have shown you can edit productively. The con is that you have shown that by evading Wikipedia's polices on block. I'm only a former Wikipedia admin, so I'm not sure how the current admins will review your request. But the behaviour of constantly creating accounts to get around your block is not helping. Singularity42 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, I *do* think you have a lot to add to Wikipedia. If you could make an unblock request in your original account and maybe show you can for a period of time determined by the administrators without creating sockpuppets, I would certainly support your return (although that may not be enough). But you have to show you can follow the policies and not create socks. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

So I've shown I can edit constructively and "have a lot to add" (indeed, you'd have to go back years to show otherwise) yet you went around and tagged dozens of constructively edited articles for deletion @Singularity42:? For what purpose? What have you actually accomplished? So I ask again, have you helped build wikipedia today or diminished it? I edit to relax. Going through a semijudicial process where I have to argue my case etc is far more stressful than its worth. If you want to be constructive you should go rewrite the articles you've had deleted. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm a former admin and still do related tasks. The pages were created while you were under an indef block. The block was there for a reason and you had to request an unblock. We don't reward people for breaching the blocking policies - there's a slippery slope there. If you are unblocked, you can create those articles legitimately. Again, you need to go through the unblock process, not just create socks. If you find literally making a request to be unblocked to be too stressful, how is what you are doing less stressful (creating whack-a-mole socks hoping they won't get caught, knowing that all your work will get deleted if discovered, and making it harder for a legitimate unblock)? Listen, I did a lot of unblocks of editors when I was an admin when they had showed they would edit constructively and follow the polices. I would want a fellow Canadian editor interested in Canadian historical articles. But I won't support someone going around their block to do so. That's why I'm encouraging you to do follow the actual unblock process. Post on your original talk page what articles you want to edit and/or create. Take six months to show you won't create socks (I think that's how much time is needed given how persistent your socking was). Point to this conversation which shows other editors think you can create good articles that are good for Wikipedia. I really hope you to do that because I want you here editing legitimately. But yeah, I will continue to tag articles for deletion that were created in defiance of a block because it compromises the entire reason we have blocks in Wikipedia. (By the way, should we take this conversation to your original account's talk page?) Singularity42 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Singularity42: I can't edit there as I scrambled and discarded the password because I had no intention of returning. And I see you're officiouly tagging more good articles for deletion . Well, I guess that's Wikipedia's loss then. As for your question "If you find literally making a request to be unblocked to be too stressful, how is what you are doing less stressful" - It's not which is why I'm not going to bother with that either. So wikipedia permanently loses well written articles that filled a gap and an editor who "has a lot to add". So I ask again, what have you accomplished today? Have you built wikipedia or diminished it? Frankly, an amnesty policy - would be more productive for Wikipedia than its current self-destructive and self-perpetuating whack a mole/scorched earth policy of disproportionate punishment.Wellington Bay (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well I guess I'll leave it there. I think there is a clear path to move forward, but it's really in your court:

Indicate on your talk page (use one you have access to and say you don't have access to your old account) which articles you plan on editing and/or creating when you are unblocked.
Wait approximately 6 months before making an unblock request to show you can follow the block without creating socks and therefore follow Wikipedia's policies.
Make an unblock request from the account you are going to be using. Point to that list and indicate that editors do believe you can edit constructively and believe you just need to avoid socking to do it.

Anyway, not much more for me to say, so I'll take off. Singularity42 (talk)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Nixon Now per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nixon Now. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing to accept and would like to submit myself to be considered for the Wikipedia:Standard offer. I have not edited or evaded my block for six months, I promise to only edit from this account (I no longer have access to User:Nixon Now so I would like to use User:Wellington Bay instead) and not to edit while logged out. Even while I was sockpuppeting I, for the most part, avoided editing disputes and I promise not to engage in any disruptive editing. There are several articles I created which were deleted because they were created by a sockpuppet and not because there was anything wrong with the content. I would like to recreate these articles (subject to AFDs if any of them are found to be unworthy. Articles I am interested in recreating are listed below. Thank you for your consideration. @Singularity42: @Ivanvector: @Girth Summit: @RoySmith: Wellington Bay (talk) 12:04 pm, 5 July 2022, Tuesday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

. Checkuser block, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional note Continued socking while this unblock request was open (User:Horatio Bumblebee). Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

That's news to me but given that several of the sockpuppets I'm alleged to have edited with in the past aren't actually mine there's not much point in contesting a false positive. I'm withdrawing my request. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #60730

moot-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended content

is closed. ArbCom referral. Noted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nixon Now. User says cannot access that account. There is an older account referenced at the SPI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: - Tell me which account it is and I will see if I still have access to it. AFAIK the Wellington Bay account is the only one for which I still have a working password. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Imperial Preference (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), noted at the very bottom of the SPI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thanks, I have just tried to login to that account and my password works. Should I make my unblock appeal from there instead as the more senior account? Wellington Bay (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think so. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: What say ye? And what of the older account Imperial Preference? (CU block) Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra I don't personally have a problem with giving someone a second chance; I don't see any evidence of socking on the IP they're currently using. I would like to hear from Bbb23 however, who blocked the original account - my block of this account is supplementary to that original block. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 18:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I don't know what you mean by "ArbCom referral".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably told 'em to email arbcom in the UTRS ticket. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Wellington Bay, did you appeal your block to ArbCom?--Bbb23§ (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No, I haven't. The response to the UTRS ticket actually said I should contact Checkusers, which seemed to make more sense than contacting Arbcom as this isn't an appeal of an Arbcom decision. I tried to email the Checkuser listserv but my email bounced as the listserv is members only. I was going to look into it further when I get back from holiday in August. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think @Girth Summit: cleared the check user part. Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock. First, for an individual with about 20 socks, not counting logged out editing, to their name, the usual six months without socking is just not enough time. Second, their attitude in December 2021 when their last socks were discovered, was belligerent and the usual I-do-good-work-so-who-cares-if-I-continue-to-sock. Nor do I see much improvement in their attitude now. What do they want to do here? Recreate all the articles that were properly deleted per g5. Not the best idea. Not only do they get a second chance, but they are indirectly rewarded for their previous behavior. Nor are they much of a contribution to the project. Toronto municipal elections from 1900? These are rather obscure election articles that clearly fascinate the user, but who else? And take a look at the reference list for 1900 Toronto municipal election. To say it is unorthodox is an understatement. It's the kind of page that would be lucky to be in draft space, but it clearly wasn't ready for article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand Toronto and Ontario history is not something that will interest most people but much of wikipedia is on "obscure" topics. However, Toronto is considered a major world city and my understanding is its elections and political figures meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The sourcing in 1900 Toronto municipal election is consistent with that in most of the Toronto municipal election series up to the 1980s or so, which I did not create and many of which I never edited eg 1928 Toronto municipal election etc.

If someone wishes to argue for a mass AFD they can do so but failing that (and in the absence of any past challenge to the series), the article you cite is within the established norm. I don't think a desire to recreate it justifies continuing an indef banning. In any case, I would refer to stronger articles such as Deanne Taylor. The articles that were deleted were never faced AFDs or speedy deletion requests over their content. They were deleted solely as G5s without prejudice to being created in the future by an editor no or no longer under sanction.

The concept of second chances refers to editors, not articles and my understanding is that bans and blocks (G5s) aren't meant to be punitive but to 1) protect the project and 2) modify behaviour.

I'm requesting a second chance. If admins feel I am not ready for a free and clear reinstatement then I would hope some sort of probation would be considered. If it's simply a matter of six months not being enough of a period to show I am no longer socking then how much time would you suggest Bbb23? What roadmap are you proposing for rehabilitation? Wellington Bay (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I must object to your denigrating the subject matter user proposed to edit on. We ask only that editors edit constructively-- not that they edit about subjects you think are important. Best Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wellington Bay unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Wellington Bay (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wellington Bay unblocked

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Northern Messenger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBO. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

George McMurrich moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, George McMurrich, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CJET-FM 92.3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Hollywood Foreign Press Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oldenburg

Those two's current articles names are at Frederick, not Frederik. 2601:249:9301:D570:64DF:D866:61C7:7E28 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Frederick VIII

You should probably wait to see if the article is to be moved before changing the links. The consensus on the talk page seems split. 2601:249:9301:D570:64DF:D866:61C7:7E28 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Laurier

Hello, Wellington Bay,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Voorts and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Alex Laurier, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Voorts}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: - the deletion occurred 16 years ago and I believe Wikipedia's practice has changed since that in that it is no longer considered acceptable to suppress information about about convictions for child sexual abuse for "privacy" reasons. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the CSD tag. I'll let another patroller review the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, if there has been prior discussion about the best article title for the page, any move should be treated as controversial and only performed after a requested moves discussion. DrKay (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fogo Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Wellington Bay. Thank you for your work on Harry W. Hunt. Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

If possible, could you please add URLs or database identifiers to the references (assuming you are not doing your research via microfilm)? That would make it easier to review the sources for notability. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bell Media Radio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CINA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Wellington Bay. Thank you for your work on Kolter Bouchard. Cocobb8, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I've marked your article as reviewed. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cocobb8}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)