User talk:Samuel R Jenkins

This is Samuel R Jenkins's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 10 days

This is Samuel R Jenkins's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 10 days

Participation at Articles for Deletion

Hey @Samuel R Jenkins, I noticed your participation at WP:AfD recently. It seems that most or all of your comments have consisted of a simple "Keep" or "Delete" with limited other information provided such as "per nominator." Comments like this are generally not given much weight. I also noticed that you have made these comments in rapid succession, commenting on as many as 6 different discussions within a minute and using an automated tool to do so. This suggests to me that you might not be taking the appropriate time to consider the article, discussion, and associated evidence before voting.

Everyone is welcome to participate at AfD, but I recommend taking some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before diving in. AfD is a consensus process, not a vote. It may be easier to begin your time on Wikipedia by contributing in article space, since you'll come into contact with Wikipedia's policies at a more measured pace than firehose that project space can be. If you do continue to participate at AfD, I'd ask you to read over WP:BEFORE to get a sense of what should be going into an AfD discussion. While this is advice for nominators, the policies, source checks, and considerations on deletion alternatives described there are extremely useful to have familiarity with. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second what @Dylnuge said. Not only, but especially when there are already lengthy discussions you should give some indication of why you vote a certain way. There certainly are closing discussions that are so obvious that not much needs to be said, but you do risk getting ignored (and occasionally attacked) if you make this a general habit. That certainly doesn't mean you should not take part in deletion discussions, just that you should be a bit more open about your reasons for voting one way or another. Welcome and don't let people WP:BITE you away. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up an ANI for this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_voting_for_38_AfDs_in_12_minutes. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, -- Random person no 362478479. This is clearly a witch hunt to keep the participation in AFDs between a few people. As was stated in the discussion on your talk page, it appears that the administrators are basing the person's edit count as a gauge of experience. As we all know, most of them use automated tools to rapidly edit and inflate their edit counts. The same thing they accuse me of doing. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the concerns. It seems the accusers here want to cherry-pick the simplest !votes and ignore the ones where there was an description of the vote like:

Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Touch%C3%A9_Restaurant_%26_Bar&diff=prev&oldid=1152433177 Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fernhag&diff=prev&oldid=1152433149 Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_Site_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1152433019 Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marius_Pharmaceuticals&diff=prev&oldid=1152432843 Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lovely_Peaches&diff=prev&oldid=1152432264 Here- https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moto_Guzzi_Quota&diff=prev&oldid=1152432558

Alas, if the community wants the backlog to continue to grow, so be it and I won't be on that part of the project anymore. It's up to the community. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is completely unwarranted. I understand the issue the issues with XFD votes, but this is complete ridiculous and there's not a shred of evidence of sock puppetry. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence is sufficient proof of sock puppetry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2023 (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.

There's a pretty obvious tell here (besides engaging in the same sort of rapid-fire editing that got User:BigDwiki blocked originally); happy to share it via email with reviewing admins if needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Share it here, or share it with me by email. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a reviewing admin, and since I am dead certain that you are the blocked editor in question, I'm not telling you how to evade next time. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have nothing but accusations. If you have a case, bring it. If not, unblock. Obviously you are a checkuser, so if you have evidence that tool gives you, post it here. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Please update user script installation

Hi there, you currently have a user script installed from Anne drew Andrew and Drew. Several weeks ago, I changed my username to Anne drew, and unfortunately, due to an issue with script redirects, the scripts you have installed under my old username no longer function.

To fix this, please update your JavaScript pages (Special:MyPage/common.js or Special:MyPage/skin.js) by replacing all instances of Anne drew Andrew and Drew with Anne drew.

If any of this is unclear, please ping Anne drew for help. I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding!

Thanks – Anne drew

You are receiving this message because you have installed one of Anne drew's user scripts. If you'd like to stop receiving notifications, you can unsubscribe here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]