Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Reverted edits by BigDunc (talk) to last version by Seicer |
||
(26 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center><div style="align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;"><br> |
|||
{{semi-retired|date=November 2008}} |
|||
<span style="color:white;font-weight:bold"><s>R E</s> T I R E D</font>'''</span></div><br></center> |
|||
<center>[[WP:GIANTDICK|No trouts to slap with here, just giant dicks.]]</center> |
|||
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%" |
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%" |
||
Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
==[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tryfoncastro]]== |
==[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tryfoncastro]]== |
||
I'm concerned with the closing of this SSP, especially since it was based on the page protection. The page was protected at our (Pinkadelica and myself) request ''because'' of the issues raised in this sock case, which is a group of what seems clearly to be a plethora of socks advocating a birthdate that couldn't be verified. This went on for literally months, with multiple "I know this because" reasons. One of these accounts stated that he/she had a birth certificate supposedly obtained from the brother of the actress, that the brother wouldn't have an issue with it being released, and asked where it could be sent as proof. This has raised greater issues, since the account has submitted (electronically, it would seem) this supposed document. One issue is with the brother being able to consent to release, if it ''were'' the brother. After the page was protected, an adminstrator came in and changed the birthdate, based on what seems to be this electronically submitted birth certificate, over the page protection. We do suspect that OTRS has been duped by the sockmaster. Ultimately, everyone agreed to wait for the outcome of this SSP to determine how to proceed. The resolution of the SSP case based on the protection of page, which is still protected based on awaiting the outcome of the SSP isn't a resolution. What would you suggest one do now? Let the possible fraud stand? Submit this somewhere else? Thanks. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
I'm concerned with the closing of this SSP, especially since it was based on the page protection. The page was protected at our (Pinkadelica and myself) request ''because'' of the issues raised in this sock case, which is a group of what seems clearly to be a plethora of socks advocating a birthdate that couldn't be verified. This went on for literally months, with multiple "I know this because" reasons. One of these accounts stated that he/she had a birth certificate supposedly obtained from the brother of the actress, that the brother wouldn't have an issue with it being released, and asked where it could be sent as proof. This has raised greater issues, since the account has submitted (electronically, it would seem) this supposed document. One issue is with the brother being able to consent to release, if it ''were'' the brother. After the page was protected, an adminstrator came in and changed the birthdate, based on what seems to be this electronically submitted birth certificate, over the page protection. We do suspect that OTRS has been duped by the sockmaster. Ultimately, everyone agreed to wait for the outcome of this SSP to determine how to proceed. The resolution of the SSP case based on the protection of page, which is still protected based on awaiting the outcome of the SSP isn't a resolution. What would you suggest one do now? Let the possible fraud stand? Submit this somewhere else? Thanks. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
: And don't use tags like {{inconclusive}} & {{unlikely}}, they are for RFCU. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Uh no. If it's not in the documentation, and not made explicit, then they are fair game. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: I used to use them myself, until [[Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets#Indicators|they told me not to]] [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm inclined to use a variety of templates that fit the situation, barring any official discussion with consensus, and an updated page in the Administrators Instructions. Nothing against the discussion that ensued, but that's pretty weak and inconclusive at best. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought I solved this, but I think I overlooked it. I'll check it out in a few hours. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Sockpuppets == |
|||
{{resolved|1=Blocked. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)}} |
|||
I believe LuketheSpook is active again using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davebrownsound this account to edit]. The new account is monitoring all the same pages and making all the same edits that Luke and his drawer of alter-egos were making. Thoughts? [[User:156.34.142.110|The Real Libs]]-[[User talk:Wiki libs|speak politely]] 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Tennis Expert== |
|||
I would ask, given the disputed nature of [[WP:MOSNUM]] (see [[WT:MOSNUM]] and the various RFCs on date unlinking and other discussion there) that you unblock Tennis Expert. The editors performing automated edits should stop performing them until the community decides this is the way to go instead of having the issue forced by brute mass editing. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:And just a pointer, I've left some responses at [[WP:AN]] to the Tennis Expert section. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::You are exactly the wrong person to make those inferences. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::How's that? And just because I'm involved doesn't make me wrong. I ask you to reconsider what you've done. In particular I ask how your decision to block and perform mass disputed edits is reconciled with one of the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli|ArbCom's recent decisions]]? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." |
|||
::::So... a lack of discussion, or discussion that leads to no consensus, followed up by hundreds of reverts... gauging by the number that have reverted his changes in the past (and the sheer number of varying editors and administrators), he's in the minority. And judging from administrator consensus at AN and his talk page, he's still in the minority. Sorry. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::As they've bypassed the discussion phase, there can be no consensus. The "number that have reverted" is irrelevant if they cite a guideline page which is disputed, especially when they fail to participate in the discussion prior to performing the edits again. Please see [[WP:BRD]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 04:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*You may be aware that [[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] has deigned to "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohconfucius&diff=prev&oldid=252304797 warn]" me about de-linking dates, and attempting to [[User:Locke_Cole/Arbitration/Date_unlinking|build a case]] to send to arbcom. I can certainly see the irony in Cole's action, and his reliance on that very same piece of decision in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Fait_accompli]], as cited above by [[User:Seicer]]. It's similar to where two warring editors seek to warn the other of having violated [[WP:3RR]] - a classic case of the [[pot calling the kettle black]]. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*But unlike most of those participating in this wide edit war, I've actually attempted discussion, repeatedly, only to be told it already had consensus and that they would refuse to discuss it (or, more likely, they simply ignored my pleas for discussion and carried on anyways). That's the difference between me and other so-called edit warriors. I actually tried (and am still trying) to participate in discussions to resolve this dispute. And yes, given the unrepentant actions of those performing mass edits during a dispute I would be silly to not start a log of activities should this go to the ArbCom. With this new RFC being discussed I'm a little more optimistic we can avoid that, hence why there haven't been any recent updates... —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::* We shall see. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== reply to your question to cite == |
|||
Hi Seicer. Apologies for the delay. I've responded to your question for a citation, as requested here: [[User_talk:Rebroad#Life_is_complicated..._Some_people_specialize_in_complications.]]. Cheers, --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] ([[User talk:Rebroad|talk]]) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User talk:78.150.57.14]] == |
|||
The unblock template should probably be removed. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Whoops, thanks :) <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:27, 22 November 2008
Goodbye
Sorry to see you go. WVhybrid (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Please respond at AN/I
I've made some points and asked some questions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions. Some of that relates to your actions, which I assume were done in good faith. I have concerns over the reasons for the blocks. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think at this point, it would only serve to beat the dead horse down just a bit more, so I'll refrain from commenting. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind dropping a note explaining your blocks please? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, nevermind. I just did not look hard enough. Tiptoety talk 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I see it's already been declined. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned with the closing of this SSP, especially since it was based on the page protection. The page was protected at our (Pinkadelica and myself) request because of the issues raised in this sock case, which is a group of what seems clearly to be a plethora of socks advocating a birthdate that couldn't be verified. This went on for literally months, with multiple "I know this because" reasons. One of these accounts stated that he/she had a birth certificate supposedly obtained from the brother of the actress, that the brother wouldn't have an issue with it being released, and asked where it could be sent as proof. This has raised greater issues, since the account has submitted (electronically, it would seem) this supposed document. One issue is with the brother being able to consent to release, if it were the brother. After the page was protected, an adminstrator came in and changed the birthdate, based on what seems to be this electronically submitted birth certificate, over the page protection. We do suspect that OTRS has been duped by the sockmaster. Ultimately, everyone agreed to wait for the outcome of this SSP to determine how to proceed. The resolution of the SSP case based on the protection of page, which is still protected based on awaiting the outcome of the SSP isn't a resolution. What would you suggest one do now? Let the possible fraud stand? Submit this somewhere else? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- And don't use tags like Inconclusive & Unlikely, they are for RFCU. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I used to use them myself, until they told me not to OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to use a variety of templates that fit the situation, barring any official discussion with consensus, and an updated page in the Administrators Instructions. Nothing against the discussion that ensued, but that's pretty weak and inconclusive at best. seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I solved this, but I think I overlooked it. I'll check it out in a few hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
I believe LuketheSpook is active again using this account to edit. The new account is monitoring all the same pages and making all the same edits that Luke and his drawer of alter-egos were making. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Tennis Expert
I would ask, given the disputed nature of WP:MOSNUM (see WT:MOSNUM and the various RFCs on date unlinking and other discussion there) that you unblock Tennis Expert. The editors performing automated edits should stop performing them until the community decides this is the way to go instead of having the issue forced by brute mass editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- And just a pointer, I've left some responses at WP:AN to the Tennis Expert section. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are exactly the wrong person to make those inferences. seicer | talk | contribs 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- How's that? And just because I'm involved doesn't make me wrong. I ask you to reconsider what you've done. In particular I ask how your decision to block and perform mass disputed edits is reconciled with one of the ArbCom's recent decisions? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits."
- So... a lack of discussion, or discussion that leads to no consensus, followed up by hundreds of reverts... gauging by the number that have reverted his changes in the past (and the sheer number of varying editors and administrators), he's in the minority. And judging from administrator consensus at AN and his talk page, he's still in the minority. Sorry. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- As they've bypassed the discussion phase, there can be no consensus. The "number that have reverted" is irrelevant if they cite a guideline page which is disputed, especially when they fail to participate in the discussion prior to performing the edits again. Please see WP:BRD. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You may be aware that Locke Cole has deigned to "warn" me about de-linking dates, and attempting to build a case to send to arbcom. I can certainly see the irony in Cole's action, and his reliance on that very same piece of decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Fait_accompli, as cited above by User:Seicer. It's similar to where two warring editors seek to warn the other of having violated WP:3RR - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- But unlike most of those participating in this wide edit war, I've actually attempted discussion, repeatedly, only to be told it already had consensus and that they would refuse to discuss it (or, more likely, they simply ignored my pleas for discussion and carried on anyways). That's the difference between me and other so-called edit warriors. I actually tried (and am still trying) to participate in discussions to resolve this dispute. And yes, given the unrepentant actions of those performing mass edits during a dispute I would be silly to not start a log of activities should this go to the ArbCom. With this new RFC being discussed I'm a little more optimistic we can avoid that, hence why there haven't been any recent updates... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- We shall see. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- As they've bypassed the discussion phase, there can be no consensus. The "number that have reverted" is irrelevant if they cite a guideline page which is disputed, especially when they fail to participate in the discussion prior to performing the edits again. Please see WP:BRD. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- How's that? And just because I'm involved doesn't make me wrong. I ask you to reconsider what you've done. In particular I ask how your decision to block and perform mass disputed edits is reconciled with one of the ArbCom's recent decisions? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are exactly the wrong person to make those inferences. seicer | talk | contribs 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply to your question to cite
Hi Seicer. Apologies for the delay. I've responded to your question for a citation, as requested here: User_talk:Rebroad#Life_is_complicated..._Some_people_specialize_in_complications.. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The unblock template should probably be removed. Enigma message 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)