questions? |
m fixing my munged comment |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
If you would like to calm the situation down and rechannel everyone's efforts toward constructive efforts to write Wikipedia articles, you might do some good by recommending to Jersyko that he stop fighting Jimbo Wales.[[User:VK35|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff00000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">VK35</span>]] 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
If you would like to calm the situation down and rechannel everyone's efforts toward constructive efforts to write Wikipedia articles, you might do some good by recommending to Jersyko that he stop fighting Jimbo Wales.[[User:VK35|<span style="margin:0;text-align:left;color:#ff00000;font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em 0.4em">VK35</span>]] 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:And why would Jersyko's lack of interest in working on an article with you demonstrate anything? By the way, I have some concerns about yet another username who may be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. Since you seem quite focused on this puppetmaster, is that of interest to you as well? <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:28, 29 May 2007
Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six seven
Yoghurt
I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just read your comment - sorry for bringing it up, I just figured I should try to make sure as many people as possible know about it.danielfolsom 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that
I am very sorry. I just noticed I've removed your comment(there were an edit conflict and I was copy pasting my comment and I mistakenly removed yours). I wanted to restore it but I noticed that you've already done that. Sorry again. --Aminz 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it seems user:Alison restored that. :) --Aminz 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent SSP report
In response to your response to my WP:SSP report of FrankJones23, MonkeyOverlord4 was vandalising a few days back, so the Puppetmaster is still active. Anyway, I'm not sure how effective an IP block would be in the first place, what with the different IP's on the list, could be a dynamic IP.
Just thought I'd bring this up. Thanks, Omega ArchdoomTalk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack
User:Lear21 personally attacked me [[1]] in the edit summery of the Superpower page. He has a history of doing this, can you please send him a warning? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.
Did you make that table entirely by hand? It's insanely detailed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. It's based on the one in the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war case. --bainer (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather it not get lost in the evidence talk page, but you had asked if I thought Miskin was a greek pov pusher, or something to that effect. No, I don't say that, and I don't have, nor have I looked for evidence to support that. I do think he significantly edits contentious topics, that happen to be similarly related: Greek, macedonia, ancient greece etc. It's possible that he is. It's possible he isn't. In the end, it's irrelevant. The reasoning was that because the blocks were on related topics, it shows a pattern of disruptive editing within those kinds of topics. That doesn't extend as far as saying he's pushing a pov on those topics. It only says that he's got a pattern of disruptive edits on those topics. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Chiswick
At first I assumed that this was a newbie, but once I started looking at the details I realised that this guy had been blocked several times and was constantly deleting his talk page to hide the trail. Furthermore, his last couple of blocks followed immediately on from each other, suggesting that he was transgressing again as soon as he could.
Although I only picked up recent potential bad faith edits to one other article apart from the parrot, it was the constant deletion of messages on his talk page (including mine, which he claimed not to have read) that convinced me that this was a problem editor. However, he has emailed me, and after a night's sleep I felt that the block was much too heavy for his "offences", and I've lifted it completely. I'll obviously keep an eye on the situation, especially with regard to any edits to the 2600 pages on my watchlist.
Thanks for your interest, jimfbleak 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: A piece of puzzle you may have missed
You might also be interested in the history of Last stand, starting around 1 May. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I decided to cover only the Battle of the Persian Gate and not any other articles, though I'm aware that these same editors edit many of the same articles, mainly because it would be too unwieldy with all that extra information, but also because administrative actions were only taken in response to edits on the Persian Gate article.
- Looking at that history page now though, I may need to look into it. --bainer (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding accusation of sockpuppeteering involving me
Dear Akhilleous,
You say that Baby Dove is the same person as Mario Fantoni. But you are wrong. One of the three IP addresses I have used, seems to be the same as his, However, I am using three different computers in different places. The one I use at home is a dial-up. The ones at the rented offices, are broadband ones and they are used by several people, so they can show different person's contributions. You can check several edits at the same time from Mario Fantoni and myself since April 9th, when I became an editor, and you can also check the three IP addresses I say for myself. Perhaps your user-checking has not considered all the possibilities.
I hope you can clear this up. Regards, Baby Dove 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not user Baby Dove. Here is a list of simultaneous edits done by that user and I:
- 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way) - BABY DOVE
- 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal - cm) - MARIO FANTONI
- 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way - + ref from Gurdjieff to existing schools in history) - BABY DOVE
- 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal) - MARIO FANTONI
- 05:53, 9 May 2007 Centers (Fourth Way) (Other Authors - +ref, cl) - MARIO FANTONI
- 05:53, 9 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (The principle of payment - gr, redundant phrase) - BABY DOVE
- 17:58, 7 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (Proof of Advertising - typo) - BABY DOVE
- 17:58, 7 May 2007 m Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (Consciousness and Functions - Added missing space) - MARIO FANTONI
- 05:16, 20 April 2007 Talk:Centers (Fourth Way) (Susan Zannos - personal opinions?) - BABY DOVE
- 05:16, 20 April 2007 m The Teachers of Gurdjieff (Corrected name of publisher) (top) - MARIO FANTONI
- 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way) - BABY DOVE
- Mario Fantoni 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you underestimate Akhilleus's experience with these matters :) Aeuio 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
IPs
You state that a number of IP addresses are "clearly me" without any stated basis. I don't think such question-begging is appropriate. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A question regarding sockpuppets
If a user has already been indef. blocked, is there any point in reporting said user as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user? I ask, well, because I have reason to suspect that OhBoyPopIsOffPeter (blocked for vandalism within the past hour) is the latest sock of Peter1PopoffNill. My suspicions only came after the former was blocked for serial vandalism to the Peter Popoff article. ---Cathal 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response. You answered my question, and confirmed my suspicion. Thanks. ---Cathal 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal Attack
User:Eurocopter tigre personally attacked me [[2]] in the edit summery of the List of countries and federations by military expenditures page. Can you please send him a warning? User:Daniel Chiswick 23 May, 2007.
Deleting talk page history for Daniel Chiswick
Well a few weeks ago you said you would help me delete my talk page history? Can you please do it as soon as you get a chance. I have a really bad reputation and that is the reason I delete my talk page. As I said I am trying to improve my reputation and deleting my talk page history will really help. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 May, 2007.
re:3RR
Im not editing as User:87.48.118.238 and I didn't broke the 3RR rule. If you'll count again, you'll see that I reverted his edits exactly 3 times. Anyway, you should read the talk page and see that me and other users reached a compromise that EU should stay there. I remind that Daniel Chiswick was blocked for removing the EU from such lists few weeks ago. In the future, please be more carefull when you send such warnings. Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really know when somebody is breaking the 3RR rule (so it's not necessary to explain me), and I didn't do that. So, please stop writing such warnings until you are really sure that somebody broke the rule, although your abuses will be discussed in the Arbitration Committee. --Eurocopter tigre 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your warning is also ridiculous, citing: I'm feeling very nice this morning, and I'm not going to block you or User:Eurocopter tigre, who also broke the 3RR. (false information). A very nice example of an admin abuse. --Eurocopter tigre 17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's about the Japanese sockpuppets again. After a long long time of edit warring, finally a conclusion was reached on the Joji Obara talk page. Everything is fine and peaceful until User:DDRG comes along again[3]. This user keeps on violating talk page consensus, refuses to participate in any conversation for any longer period, and is yet to make a single constructive edit. Attempts to discuss things with him have been made, but seemingly to no avail. What should I do? What is the next step? Mackan 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Another personal attack
Sorry to bother you about these things but I trust you more than other admins. I would like to report age discrimination byUser:Eurocopter tigre. On my talk page [[4]] he talked of my youth (I'm sixteen) in a rather rude way and on talk page of the Superpower [[5]] article an unregistered user made a similar remark towards me and I traced the IP adress to Europe so I am almost certain that it was him because no two users from europe would make the same insult on the same day to the same person. This is the third time in two days that he has personally attacked me, and in the most hypocritical way if I may add. According to the rules Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets are never acceptable [[6]] User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
- I think I was very civil when I said that I don't need advices from an 16 years old child, that's not a personal attack because that's one of my personal opinions. Regarding the edit on the Superpower talk page it wasn't me. My home IP is User:85.186.50.133 (contribs) (note that I made one of the last edits from the IP on 1st March 2007 - the day I made the first edit from my newly created account Eurocopter tigre (contribs). In few moments I will log out and make a minor edit to this page, so you'll see my IP. Best, Eurocopter tigre 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's me , User:Eurocopter tigre. 85.186.50.133 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sinxteen year old child? That is age discrimination and it is considered a personal attack. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
Guys, please cut this out. Eurocopter isn't being nice, but Daniel is overreacting, and my talk page is not the place to discuss these things. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like you are the only one who can talk any sense to Daniel. He is currently violating consensus on Huntington Beach, California. After various attempts to plead for him to discuss it on the talk page, he has decided to attack me for using an IP rather than a user name. Please check out the article and its talk page, its a pretty clear case that he has no regard for consensus if it involves something that has to do with British spelling. I'll guarantee that half of his British to American spelling changes likely violate WP:ENGVAR. For example: [[7]], the "armour" line is part of the template and changing it has no point since nothing is in the field. There is absolutely no reason to do what he did except for his hatred of seeing British English spelling.
I created the article SS Paris and I used American english and I intend to keep it that way. Yes I do hate British spelling because I find it outdated and old fashion, is that a problem? Also if you look at the top of the article it clearly says use American english. Also Huntington Beach is an American city and I could provide dozens of scources saying Huntington Beach harbor, not harbour. if you are going to talk to me please do it on my page and not another users page. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
- Blatant violations of WP:OWN[8] and WP:ENGVAR, why do you even edit on Wiki if you disregard its rules based on your likes and dislikes? Your talk page? Please no one sends you messages there since they see that only those who have something to hide delete messages rather than archive them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.43.42 (talk • contribs).
- 128.227.43.42, if you want to address Daniel, do so on his talk page, not here. And please be civil when you do so, I don't think this last comment was. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Archving at WP:SUSPSOCK
Hello! I was looking around the WP:SUSPSOCK page and wondered it could do with an archival bot. All the actioning person would have to do is add a template, such as {{SSA}} (Suspected Sock Archive) to the request and the bot will search every five minutes and archive them to the current month directory. If you are interested in supporting such a bot and template process, please leave a note on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Extranet is now E talk 10:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that template should do. I'll take a look around and create an outline. I will let you know of the status of it, if it goes through. Extranet is now E talk 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can see the bot approval request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EBot2. You can even have your say. E talk 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You closed this while it's still an ongoing problem. That guy is still creating new users and the articles he's messing with are still not protected from him. Baseball Bugs 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then they need to get busy and semi-protect the pages. That's much more efficient than watching for every new user he invents. He's created 6 in the last 3 days, and he ignores all requests to do things the right way. Baseball Bugs 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, you don't want to slow him down? Baseball Bugs 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And the more open it continues to stay in this case, the more he'll persist. You need to semi-protect all the articles he messes with, as well as blocking his new puppets. Keep in mind he uses IP addresses a lot also. He's apparently working (so to speak) in the New York area, so if one PC won't let him in, he just goes to another one. And blocking IP addresses isn't fair to legitimate users. So you need to semi-protect the articles for a week (for starters) and continue to block his new puppets. Because, frankly, I'm getting tired of wasting my time on this guy. Meanwhile, he's continuing to mess with pages, so I've got to get back to reverting him. Baseball Bugs 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking up the semi-protection torch and blocking his latest item. He put a new spin on it, updating the Chester Arthur article, but unsourced as usual. Meanwhile, I just posted a rhetorical question on Retrosheet. Since the "Ron Liebman" editor has referenced it vaguely from time to time, the light went on and it occurred to me that the likes of him could probably also be updating Retrosheet, and that therefore it is a suspect source for wikipedia articles, at least without independent confirmation of the same info. In short, Retrosheet is arguably just a fancy "weblog". I'd like your opinion on that point. Baseball Bugs 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- And the more open it continues to stay in this case, the more he'll persist. You need to semi-protect all the articles he messes with, as well as blocking his new puppets. Keep in mind he uses IP addresses a lot also. He's apparently working (so to speak) in the New York area, so if one PC won't let him in, he just goes to another one. And blocking IP addresses isn't fair to legitimate users. So you need to semi-protect the articles for a week (for starters) and continue to block his new puppets. Because, frankly, I'm getting tired of wasting my time on this guy. Meanwhile, he's continuing to mess with pages, so I've got to get back to reverting him. Baseball Bugs 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, you don't want to slow him down? Baseball Bugs 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Akhilleus. I am confused by the name of this section. I would have thought that the whole article could be described as the above section and article name. By what means is a distinction drawn, for example, between a current song and Plato's work? When does it become trivial? Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think you forgot the salutation at the start of your response. This is just a academic discussion, please don't think I'm a digruntled editor. It relates to something I'm wondering about at the moment, this was my previous edit which regards trivia. It seems to be becoming a hot topic, there is a lot of tagging and deleting going on at the moment. Trivia should be removed, but it is a judgement call as you said. I should have chosen a better example, but I think you answered my question. It would seem that both articles could be named as above. It could almost be an example of content forking, in my understanding of the term. Has renaming it as a list been considered? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was not aware that you had done that, I had supposed that something like that had happened. I imagine it would be very frustrating to have to deal with edits, say, by fans of a TV show (perhaps cute witches in suburbia or something) that habitually makes reference to myth and legend. TV writers attempt to give depth to their creations in this way, fans probably think this is more significant than it is and leap to include a link to their favourite article. However, the formation of sub-articles (a deprecated practice, nu?) might often lead to the permanent deletion of contributions, thus my suggestion of a list. I think this is similar to my trivia section to deletion analysis that I mentioned at the the noticeboard. That might not be the intent of editors, but it is the likely outcome it seems. Why don't you move it and call it a stub, it would save it from the grave diggers at AfD. It is a fascinating subject - Atlantis - but I can't remember why I was watching it. It does make for an interesting example for my overview of the workings in our community. Thanks for helping me to think out loud about this, I won't take up any more of your time. Cheers, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
SSP
Hi Akhilleus. Since it seems that almost no one else seems to care about this situation, I wanted to note that, after seeing this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Harebag and noting some corroborating evidence in the user's contributions, I feel pretty confident that Harebag might also be related to User:VK35. VK35, you might remember, was unblocked by Jimbo a few days ago despite checkuser confirmation and corroborating evidence that VK35 is a sock of Dereks1x. I wanted to notify someone else of this because I noticed that Harebag has been "interacting with" VK35, even encouraging VK35 to try to become an admin. I've almost gotten to the point where I want to wash my hands of the whole mess, but I wanted to note this to you given that you seem to have an immeasurable amount of patience for dealing with sockpuppets (bless you!). · jersyko talk 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack (2)
User:Cfvh personally attacked me in the edit summery of these pages [9] [10] and called my two warnings vandalism. I tried to warn him/her myself but they won't listen, so I am reporting them to you. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
Akhilleus, no offense, everybody who is telling something to chiswick is "personal attacking" him, in his opinion. However I see he always complains on your talk page when somebody is "personal attacking" him. In my opinion, this is like when a baby complains to his mother that other people said to him that he is a baby (but that's completely true). So, please tell him to stop with those imaginary personal attacks (because, in my opinion, most of its edits are disruptive for wiki). Best regards, Eurocopter tigre 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So somebody calling me "Arrogant" and to "Educate" myself isn't a personal attack? I trust Akhilleus more than other admins and that is why when I have a complaint I tell him. I know what a personal attack is and I would not just repory somebody for no reason, also you should really stay out of this since it doesn't concern you. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
Just a note, I am now aware of Daniel's extensive warning and ban history and I will report all of this to other administrators if this ridiculousness is taken seriously. Charles 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Charles! Chiswick, when I said that I'm not usually listening to 16 years old child, I said it because that's one of my personal opinions, it doesn't mean I attacked you. And when I'm saying that you were a vandal in the past, that's also not a personal attack - it is a true fact. Instead of making disruptive edits and dozens of complains to Akhilleus, you could try to collaborate with other users and make yourself usefull for wikipedia. --Eurocopter tigre 13:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I had a history, I have not been blocked in a while and I have done nothing wrong reccently. Just because a user has a bad reputation does not mean that you have the right to use that against them and that does not mean that the user in question cannot have complaints. I made two edits on a page and you told me to educate my self which is an insult remark which is a perosnal attack so I sent you are warning and when you deleted it you called me arrogant in the edit summery so I reported you to an admin, is there anything wrong with that? And if nothing is done about this I will just go to another admin because if my case is just pushed aside just because I have a "History" it is discrimination. Most the warnings on my talk page that got me blocked should not be used against be because I was already blocked and have not been blocked since, and any warnings I have gotten since then I listen to. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
I never said that saying that I used to be a vandal is a personal attack, but using it against me is a form of discrimination and you know it, but that is not what I am complaining about anyway. If you want to talk to me do it on my page because this really has nothing to do with you. User:Daniel Chiswick 28 May, 2007.
questions?
Accusing Harebag, of all editors, of being a VK35 sock or vice versa is out of line. Continued attacks on me by Jersyko because he is unhappy with Jimbo Wales is in violation of WP:AGF.
I have asked Jersyko to channel his efforts constructively by helping me with McDonnell Douglas v. Green but he has not done so. I have also asked Harebag to spend his efforts on improving one police or fire department article instead of spreading his effort over many with the result of having non-notable articles that are widely voted for deletion. Like Jersyko, he has not done so. (According to Jersyko's logic, Jersyko must be a sock of Harebag!).
If you would like to calm the situation down and rechannel everyone's efforts toward constructive efforts to write Wikipedia articles, you might do some good by recommending to Jersyko that he stop fighting Jimbo Wales.VK35 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- And why would Jersyko's lack of interest in working on an article with you demonstrate anything? By the way, I have some concerns about yet another username who may be a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. Since you seem quite focused on this puppetmaster, is that of interest to you as well? Tvoz |talk 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)