→Tymek: reply |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) →Tymek: will unblock |
||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
:::::: Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
:::::: Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::: I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
::::::: I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: Okay then, seeing your stance of irrational obstructionism vis-a-vis a fellow administrator, and in the absence of any visible activity from the checkusers, I'll have to take this into my own hands and will unblock the guy so he can take part in the arbcom case. Your behaviour is an utter mystery to me. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Dear talk page watchers (Yes, You!) == |
== Dear talk page watchers (Yes, You!) == |
Revision as of 21:58, 18 September 2009
Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page
Hi Jehochman
You were kind enough to step in before when Paulmagoo started using the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion page as his bulletin board [1]. Now he has published a huge and some might think inflammatory book review on the page, which should really be removed. Also it seems likely that using an anonymous IP he has been engaged in an edit war with other editors, and having been blocked for 24 hrs has changed IP. Could you take a look please?
Thanks --Kyndinos (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. I've given them a final warning. Jehochman Talk 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for looking in on the talk page. Unfortunately an anonymous IP has undone your edit. I've traced the routes of all the the anonymous IP edits, they're all BT, all to Edinburgh, Scotland, and as the Paulmagoo user page gives an address @btinternet, it points to all this activity by the same person all the time. Very confrontational. --Kyndinos (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Did you mean to protect the Scottish Knights Templar Discussion? It is unprotected at the moment and an anonymous IP vandalized it yesterday. --Kyndinos (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A friendly note
I'm informing you that I sent a letter to the Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. Regarding your Administrator rights. I requested that your Administrator rights be reviewed and removed do to misuse. I sent my letter to P.O. Box 78350, San Francisco, California. I also called them at 1.415.839.6885. I also sent a long e mail to Jimmy Wales. I expand how you are abusing your Administrator rights. I don't want to say too much on site as it will just educate you.
I highly recommend not removing this message, because Wikipedia Foundation ask me to notified you regarding this matter. If you delete this message and block me, It will show that you indeed have been misuse your Administrator rights. --71.105.195.182 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- As the IP's contribs show, this is a single purpose non-account for sending these warnings to admins. VirtualSteve got two of them and appears to know who the sender is. I wonder if the letters are signed with the IP address. —Finell (Talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- it's Michael93555 (talk · contribs) trolling the admins that dealt with, blocked and declined unblock requests on his recent sockpuppet D climacus (talk · contribs). I reverted his other notices as he is a banned user avoiding his ban but as someone has already replied here, I'll leave it to Jehochman. This is obviously just trolling, though, and I wouldn't give it a second thought. As someone who has had a bit to do with the Foundation, I know the Foundation does not get involved in this sort of thing and leaves disputes and admin issues up to the local communities. Even if there is an abusive admin, the Foundation won't get involved and will just leave it up to the Arbitration Committee to review and desysop, if appropriate. If Michael thinks he has a case to make with regard to his sock being blocked, he will need to take it up through the usual means, either through the ArbCom or by appealing to the community in a legit way that complies with the block and ban policies. Besides the fact that his sock was blocked in accord with policy and via an ANI discussion, and there was absolutely nothing abusive or underhand about it at all. His notice is just trolling, game playing and a waste of time. Sarah 02:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
D Tombe is violating his ban.
Take a stroll on the speed of light talk page and you'll his that he's back. Unless he's only banned from the article itself and not the talk page.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I lifted the ban, pending arbitration. It would be unwise for him to demonstrate tendentiousness while arbitration is ongoing. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, well then nevermind. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Scary
If it amuses you to know this, by this measure you garner 13.9% as much attention as Jimbo.[2] Let's take that table next to the telescreen and enjoy lunch. Durova315 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- About fifty percent more people are watching me than User:Carcharoth, but (s)he got mentioned on TV. *pout*. Your 389 stalkers beat my 264, Elonka's 296, Thatcher's 299, Lar's 304, Rlevse's 309, Newyorkbrad's 350 and Bishonen's 359. SlimVirgin has 622. Can you find any higher besides Mr. Wales? Jehochman Talk 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Raul654 and JzG both have over 500. SV seems to be highest as far as anyone has figured out. Btw, you're mentioned on today's blog.[3] Durova315 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blushes* I love blog coverage. I wonder what're the levels of attention given to various project pages as a fraction of ANI. I assume ANI to be the most watched page on WP. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dunno. It seemed funnier to compare to Jimbo. Also less tendency to taint the people who get high numbers, since some of the result appears related to drama but other factors also apply. YellowMonkey and Jdelanoy both get high cj ratings while being low key productive people. Durova315 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Raul654 and JzG both have over 500. SV seems to be highest as far as anyone has figured out. Btw, you're mentioned on today's blog.[3] Durova315 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know ...
I don't know if you are aware of it, but Brews left several posts announcing that he is no longer participating in Wikipedia[4][5][6][7]. I didn't originate this idea or raise it with him out of the blue, and I certainly didn't mean to pressure him. I was trying help him to make a graceful exit, since he had already decided to leave. In my first interactions with Brews in August, by which time everyone else was already fed up with him, I reached out to him and tried to help him get along better with the other editors and to understand what they were trying to explain to him. He dismissed me just as he has dismissed everyone else. —Finell (Talk) 06:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: Compromised account
Regarding User:Tymek, can you give me more details? I've known him on Wiki for years, and met him off Wiki once, he has always been a constructive editor. How was his account compromised? Did somebody hack it? Can this be fixed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2009 flu pandemic
The article 2009 flu pandemic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:2009 flu pandemic for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Closing ANI
Hi, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you closed the ANI on Otterathome? I saw you linked to WP:DR, but I saw nothing there that indicated the length of a thread had anything to do with whether it should be closed or not. Also, the thread was currently in progress (it is an ongoing and complicated issue), and another admin, User:SarekOfVulcan, recently said that the thread "wasn't ripe for closing yet" [8] Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- ANI is not a chatroom. It's a place to request administrative help with a problem. The page exceeded 600kb, which is way too huge. I removed the oldest and largest threads (mostly) to get the page back down to a manageable size. If you want to continue the discussion, merely link to the archive and start a new section with a brief summary of what administrative action you're seeking. Regards, Jehochman Talk 02:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why it was so long is because no admins were responding to it at all. A number of users gave evidence to how much trouble Otter has been causing but it seemed like no one was noticing. How did no one see the problem? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Tymek
Hi, any news about the status of User:Tymek's account? are you aware if checkusers have cleared him or something? It seems pretty certain from later e-mails I've got from his account that he is again himself, so I would tend to unblock him (and let the arbs deal with the rest), but I wouldn't want to do that if any checkusering or similar investigation is still ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. I am taking no action. It's up to the checkusers or arbitrators to decide what to do. Jehochman Talk 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know which checkuser(s) have been involved with the case? I'm not sure if the Arbs have him on their radar at all at the moment – he wasn't even listed as a party to the new case, last time I looked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to convince people that you are uninvolved, you have to do a better job of being indifferent! Jehochman Talk 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- ????!? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- [9] Jehochman Talk 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay then, seeing your stance of irrational obstructionism vis-a-vis a fellow administrator, and in the absence of any visible activity from the checkusers, I'll have to take this into my own hands and will unblock the guy so he can take part in the arbcom case. Your behaviour is an utter mystery to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am not giving out any information regarding this case, other than what I choose to post. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. But since I was one of those who set the stone rolling by contacting Arbcom, I can't help feeling I still have a certain responsibility, as an uninvolved administrator, to see that the people involved get treated fairly. Call it a sense of basic human decency? So, would you perhaps now be so kind and answer my simple factual question: you said you contacted several checkusers; I haven't seen that any checkusers have commented on the compromised account issue; so who can I contact to see if this has been taken care of? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- [9] Jehochman Talk 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- ????!? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to convince people that you are uninvolved, you have to do a better job of being indifferent! Jehochman Talk 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know which checkuser(s) have been involved with the case? I'm not sure if the Arbs have him on their radar at all at the moment – he wasn't even listed as a party to the new case, last time I looked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear talk page watchers (Yes, You!)
I need help with the suggestions at Talk:2009 flu pandemic/GA1. It doesn't matter whether you're motivated by sympathy or a desire to prove your wiki-fu is stronger than mine. Have at it! Jehochman Talk 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Que-king myself...
Um... "We have somebody who claimed to me that they were a hacker, but that person could have been lying. A hacker is somebody capable of dishonesty." So... You think they were lying about being a hacker, on the basis that hackers habitually engage in dishonesty? Tell me, do you dine upon the chicken or the egg first? Irma Puzzled Sysop (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)