Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prester John

User talk:207.47.96.26 seems to have made edits very similar to these sock puppets. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:I Wake Up Screaming[edit]

A tag on User talk:I Wake Up Screaming says "Blocked as a sockpuppet ... All of your edits have been reverted."

But there are many edits by this sock which have not been reverted... Johnfos (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merbabu and I have now done what we can to revert Screaming's edits. Carbon fertilization is a new article which Screaming started, so perhaps an Admin would be good enough to speedy delete this. Johnfos (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable deleting that. As far as I know, Prester John is only indefinitely blocked, not banned under the banning policy, so it would seem that G5 does not apply. Also, I think we need to use some common sense when applying "all your edits have been reverted". I haven't gone through and checked but I hope that people haven't been reverting mistakes back into the mainspace just because the template says "all your edits have been reverted" and if they have, I hope they've fixed mistakes in their own name. I hate to think of the mainspace being damaged just to fulfill a sentence in a block template. Sarah 08:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the "All of your edits have been reverted" sentence in the block template is incorrect, or for some reason does not apply, then maybe it needs to be changed or omitted in order to avoid confusion. Johnfos (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, thank you for your help cleaning up - I didn't mean my previous comment to sound critical of you personally or anything like that and I really appreciate you and others helping as it takes pressure off admins. I'm just concerned that if a PJ sock removes vandalism or other inappropriate material or corrects a spelling error, for example, someone might revert it back. I think the wording in the template has been chosen to try to deter people from creating more socks by telling them their edits will just end up being reverted so they're wasting their time. But I just wanted to make people aware, to be careful that they check what they're reverting and don't blind revert at the expense of the integrity of the mainspace. Sarah 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarah, for explaining that. Appreciate it. I only wish that there was more PJ material that we could save but, as you have pointed out elsewhere this morning, much of it is strong POV and (I would add) much of it is not well written.

Thanks to you and Matilda for sorting out all of this... Johnfos (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]