→Mantanmoreland: barnstar |
Caspian blue (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
::::::::I believe that [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka|Azukimonaka]] was just as disruptive, and is perhaps related to [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke|Kamosuke]]. All revert warriors are disruptive on BOTH sides, especially if they revert across multiple articles without much discussion. I think we should request arbcom to extend their [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks#Liancourt Rocks article probation|"Liancourt Rocks article probation"]] (and the [[Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct|"New rules of conduct"]]) to more articles, based on where the revert warring occurs.--[[User:Endroit|Endroit]] ([[User talk:Endroit|talk]]) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::I believe that [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka|Azukimonaka]] was just as disruptive, and is perhaps related to [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kamosuke|Kamosuke]]. All revert warriors are disruptive on BOTH sides, especially if they revert across multiple articles without much discussion. I think we should request arbcom to extend their [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks#Liancourt Rocks article probation|"Liancourt Rocks article probation"]] (and the [[Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct|"New rules of conduct"]]) to more articles, based on where the revert warring occurs.--[[User:Endroit|Endroit]] ([[User talk:Endroit|talk]]) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Not BOTH side, but just Japanese side at this time. The ill-faith editors from 2channel should be blamed for these disruptions. You must not confuse this situation with Liancourt Rocks probation. You are also major player from Japanese side, so please don't evade the subject.--[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Endroit is on the wrong side of the ocean, so you can leave him out of further speculations. File a new separate request on Saintjust that focuses on the evidence connecting those accounts. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
*Endroit is on the wrong side of the ocean, so you can leave him out of further speculations. File a new separate request on Saintjust that focuses on the evidence connecting those accounts. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you for the advice. I make a new report on Saintjust and think I have to make another file on {{User|Princesunta}}. He is an obvious sock who acts very similar to Azukimonaka or Opp2. However, Endroit's condoning [[2channel]] (he might be related to that) and his several break times also give me several big questions in my mind. --[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
:Thank you for the advice. I make a new report on Saintjust and think I have to make another file on {{User|Princesunta}}. He is an obvious sock who acts very similar to Azukimonaka or Opp2. However, Endroit's condoning [[2channel]] (he might be related to that) and his several break times also give me several big questions in my mind. --[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Please go easy with your [[WP:AGF|assumptions]], Appletrees. I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel.--[[User:Endroit|Endroit]] ([[User talk:Endroit|talk]]) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::Please go easy with your [[WP:AGF|assumptions]], Appletrees. I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel.--[[User:Endroit|Endroit]] ([[User talk:Endroit|talk]]) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::Endroit, please show a good example first before saying to someone like that. Didn't you take advantage of Thatcher's previous comment on me? That is very bad faith. You accused me a meatpuppet because I reverted your edit. You so quickly rushed into ANI unlike me giving plenty of time for Japanese meat puppets to stop the disruption. And you could be very generous to stalkers if your every single edits have been monitored by someone like {{User|Nanshu}} and stalked for over 2 months by {{User|Mochi}}, {{User|Kusunose}}, {{User|Amazonfire}} did to me. I was disappointed at Kusunose of whom I thought fair editors once. --[[User:Appletrees|Appletrees]] ([[User talk:Appletrees|talk]]) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If editors associated with 2chan are causing problems, that could be a matter for discussion (RFC, mediation, etc) but it is not a matter for checkuser. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
::If editors associated with 2chan are causing problems, that could be a matter for discussion (RFC, mediation, etc) but it is not a matter for checkuser. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:29, 26 February 2008
My admin actions |
---|
Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions |
Admin links |
Noticeboard • Incidents • AIV • 3RR |
CSD • Prod • AfD |
Backlog • Images • RFU • Autoblocks |
Articles |
GAN • Criteria • Process • Content RFC |
Checkuser and Oversight |
Checkuser • Oversight log • Suppression log |
SUL tool • User rights • All range blocks |
Tor check • Geolocate • Geolocate • Honey pot |
RBL lookup • DNSstuff • Abusive Hosts |
Wikistalk tool • Single IP lookup |
Other wikis |
Quote • Meta • Commons |
Template links |
Piggybank • Tor list • Links |
Other |
Temp • Sandbox1 • Sandbox3 • Sandbox4 |
• Wikistalk • Wannabe Kate's tool • Prefix index |
• Contribs by page • Watchlist count |
Talk archives |
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 |
Can you check this?
I got to know that why I have been chased by so many Japanese people since December. They made two treads at 2channel, a Japanese bulletin board.
- Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia(ウィキペディア)捏造に対抗せよ 21.
- http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1198939173/ :translation tool for not Japanese speaker
It is filled with personal attack and racial slurs against only me such as Chosenjin, hwabyeong patient, psycho, institutionalized mentally deranged person, irrational person, stupid, .etc. I translated some of the Japanese thread. I'm so exhausted of all these dramas, so didn't consider to report it at ANI or Arbicom, but the meatpuppet and sockpuppet of Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou/Orchis29 are haunting around me and pushing POV much. I talked to admin, LordAmeth who can read Japanese, see this User_talk:LordAmeth#Need_a_guideline
Before reporting the incident at ANI, I ask you to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki
2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs), Limited200802th (talk · contribs) look like obvious sock of Azukimonaka per the same interest and writing style, especially "erroneous". I believe these editors are also socks of him, and are proved as sock to each other at RFCU but they were not infinitely blocked. They abusively used the accounts though.
and- ShinjukuXYZ (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), NekoNekoTeacher (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- the erroneous information
They write poor wording in English and the literary word, erroneous is not commonly used and is likely for non-English speakers to see it in advanced test preparation books like GRE, GMAT.
- [1] by 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs)
- [2](As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) by ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs)
- [3] He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs)
I can't file another RFCU files right now because my two files are not finished and you advised me not to use it much. But I couldn't help plead this again to you.--Appletrees (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- 211.131.78.108 (talk · contribs) is Azukimonaka and 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs) is Limited200802th but there is nothing allowing me to tie them to anyone else. The rest of the results are as indicated on the RFCU. Thatcher 11:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding User:Crips r us
Hey Thatcher, was hoping you might have a look at this; you were the CU that attended to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crips r us. Any thoughts? GlassCobra 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- If an IP user claims to be a banned user I would revert the edit and ask at WP:AIV for a block. No checkuser needed. Thatcher 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Closure of appeal
I'm unhappy with your closure of my appeal. Motion 1 had 8 votes and Motion 2 had 12, yes—but four of the Motion 2 votes were qualified as second choice, while none of the Motion 1 votes were qualified as second choice. Therefore it seems to me the vote was split; I would expect the second choice votes to not count towards Motion 2 if Motion 1 also had majority support. Everyking (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite; there is one conditional oppose (NYB) and two "second choice" (Sam and Paul). "Either is fine" does not mean second choice. Evaluating the conditionals then motion one is at 8-2 with one abstention and motion 2 is at 9-1 with no abstentions, so motion 2 passes 11-1. (And clearly has more consensus support) Thatcher 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 also gave motion 1 as his first choice. It seems to me that if "second choice" is to have any practical meaning those votes have to only apply to the first choice if both of them have a majority. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is also correct that the purpose of these votes is to evaluate the committee's consensus. At best under your interpretation, version one is 8-2 and version 2 is 8-1, which still indicates stronger consensus for version 2. All the arbitrators had the opportunity to issue a binding conditional oppose as newyorkbrad did, but they didn't. I suppose you could try contacting the 3 "second choice" admins and ask them to modify their votes... And as far as the recording the final tally as 11-1, the conditionals are used to evaluate the various alternatives but then all votes are applied to the final tally, per long practice on dozens of cases. Thatcher 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that the two oppose votes still give Motion 2 an edge, but in that case it's razor thin and we should wait for other arbitrators to participate (I believe there are two others who are active but haven't voted yet) to get something more conclusive. Furthermore, can arbitrators still change their votes after you've closed the appeal and moved the discussion to talk? Wouldn't it have to be reopened? Everyking (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Once a motion has sufficient votes to pass, the clerks usually wait 24 hours or so and then close. Here that occurred on 19 Feb with Paul August's vote at which point #1 failed 6-2 and #2 passed 8-1. Even as of yesterday #1 was failing 7-2 and #2 passed 10-1. I don't see how adding one more vote for both proposals should make the situation more doubtful. I think that modifying the terms of the probation in the event of a change or clarification to a vote would be less disruptive than reverting the entire close and waiting for more votes. I remain always open to view of arbitrators that may contradict me in interpretation of votes or voting procedures. Thatcher
- I acknowledge that the two oppose votes still give Motion 2 an edge, but in that case it's razor thin and we should wait for other arbitrators to participate (I believe there are two others who are active but haven't voted yet) to get something more conclusive. Furthermore, can arbitrators still change their votes after you've closed the appeal and moved the discussion to talk? Wouldn't it have to be reopened? Everyking (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is also correct that the purpose of these votes is to evaluate the committee's consensus. At best under your interpretation, version one is 8-2 and version 2 is 8-1, which still indicates stronger consensus for version 2. All the arbitrators had the opportunity to issue a binding conditional oppose as newyorkbrad did, but they didn't. I suppose you could try contacting the 3 "second choice" admins and ask them to modify their votes... And as far as the recording the final tally as 11-1, the conditionals are used to evaluate the various alternatives but then all votes are applied to the final tally, per long practice on dozens of cases. Thatcher 16:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 also gave motion 1 as his first choice. It seems to me that if "second choice" is to have any practical meaning those votes have to only apply to the first choice if both of them have a majority. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I would like it noted that this misrepresents the intent of a "support", even if it is qualified as a first or second choice. That is far from saying either are opposed or rejected. "Second choice" is in no way ever to be taken to signify somehow a tacit oppose. If I had had a problem with either, I would have said so more forcefully or opposed. I did not. I supported both, and stated as much. I stated there was "some question" and "marginal" preference. These give a "flavor" somewhat, to the votes. In this decision, the matter is evident. Motion 1 received 6 net votes, allowing for two opposes. It failed to pass. Motion 2 received 12 net votes, and significantly, no arbitrator opposed it. It passed.
Wikipedia works on consensus. Part of consensus is addressing the concerns of minorities as well. It is clear that motion 2 received double the net support, and also, took better care of minority concerns. Had others felt it unreasonable, it would have been opposed, but it was not. The debate was adjudged and closed by Thatcher. Thatcher is an arbcom clerk, and a highly experienced one. His role for a long time has been balancing such decisions, and he is good at it. As with AFD, the arbitrators state views, and the clerk will consider which view has gained the stronger consensus, if more than two have. Thatchers' judgement is not even close to borderline here. It's the only viable evaluation that any experienced RFAR clerk or arbitrator would be likely to come to. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- This means that saying "first choice" or "second choice" is just kind of a personal statement without any bearing on the result? If each received eight votes, but one received all first choices and the other received all second choices, that would actually be a tie? Or if one received eight first choices and the other received nine second choices, the latter would win out? Everyking (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It means a degree of equanimity between the two. First and second choice are most usually significant when variants are proposed that get similar numbers of votes for each, and therefore it is useful to get a "feel" beyond just "support/oppose" how the individual arbitrators see them. These may be in the form of comments, first/second, and so on. It's extra information for the clerks to use, to compare the nature of support different motions receive. It doesn't really supersede basic "support/oppose", but it can sway it a bit, if a basic comparison is ambiguous. Best ask Thatcher for his view, which will probably be quite well explained. For example if an arbitrator states "I would prefer motion 1, and motion 2 is my second choice" and then motion 1 doesn't pass, then it is a way of transferring votes to other motions. Thus conditionals and preferences are not uncommon. But as with all consensus-seeking, it's not a simple matter in every case. In this case though, with only one motion passing, and that one passing strongly and unanimously, it is not an issue; motion 1 did not pass, which means the question of which was preferred by various people is a non-question. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Motion 1 did receive a majority of eight votes, so I thought it had passed. Do oppose votes cancel out support votes in determining whether a majority is reached? That doesn't make sense to me; it still received support from eight out of 14 active arbitrators, which is mathematically a majority. Everyking (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a typo above "failed 6-2". It should be "8-2". The appropriate decision is unchanged though, 8 with 2 opposes and an amended motion that then results in 12 with none, will almost always be the latter that is deemed to convey the stronger consensus. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- All right then. I'll just have to keep waiting. Everyking (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- With one correction: Brad's vote is a firm conditional that should be read as oppose if both motions have enough raw votes to pass and it comes down to the conditionals, so the tallies are 8-2 and 11-1. From the simple point of view that 8 votes passes, then both pass, but since they are inherently contradictory, some kind of analysis must be used. It is hard to see a way to avoid the interpretation that there is more consensus on the committee for keeping the harassment parole than for lifting it. The actual final tallies are 8-2 and 11-1. If you look at conditionals under the light most favorable to lifting the parole, you get 8-2-1 to lift versus 8-1 to keep it. If you consider arbitrators who cast binding votes as opposed to stating preferences, then 2 arbitrators are opposed to lifting the parole and one arbitrator is opposed to leaving it in place. Proposal #2 passed 3 days earlier than #1. We don't normally use net votes for decisions that are majority based but if you look at net votes there are 6 in favor of #1 but 10 in favor of #2. Two arbitrators only voted on #2. No matter how you slice the loaf, the result as I see it is to leave the harassment parole in place. Thatcher 18:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- All right then. I'll just have to keep waiting. Everyking (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a typo above "failed 6-2". It should be "8-2". The appropriate decision is unchanged though, 8 with 2 opposes and an amended motion that then results in 12 with none, will almost always be the latter that is deemed to convey the stronger consensus. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Motion 1 did receive a majority of eight votes, so I thought it had passed. Do oppose votes cancel out support votes in determining whether a majority is reached? That doesn't make sense to me; it still received support from eight out of 14 active arbitrators, which is mathematically a majority. Everyking (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It means a degree of equanimity between the two. First and second choice are most usually significant when variants are proposed that get similar numbers of votes for each, and therefore it is useful to get a "feel" beyond just "support/oppose" how the individual arbitrators see them. These may be in the form of comments, first/second, and so on. It's extra information for the clerks to use, to compare the nature of support different motions receive. It doesn't really supersede basic "support/oppose", but it can sway it a bit, if a basic comparison is ambiguous. Best ask Thatcher for his view, which will probably be quite well explained. For example if an arbitrator states "I would prefer motion 1, and motion 2 is my second choice" and then motion 1 doesn't pass, then it is a way of transferring votes to other motions. Thus conditionals and preferences are not uncommon. But as with all consensus-seeking, it's not a simple matter in every case. In this case though, with only one motion passing, and that one passing strongly and unanimously, it is not an issue; motion 1 did not pass, which means the question of which was preferred by various people is a non-question. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My comments on all this are on WP:RfAr at the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ban
Although I don't like the ban of not being able to edit Amon Amarth at all, I will except it. Especially since this means Twsx can not edit war on the page. What about the Dissection page? I'm not sure if I trust that Twsx won't mess with that. I can assure you though, that when the ban lifts, I will not mess with the page, I may edit it, but I will not edit the genre delimiters and restart the edit war. I'm not sure Twsx will feel the same. But as long as he doesn't edit the genre delimiters then there's nothing to worrry about on my end. I supposed if he does edit them I will report it to you immediately. Is this the lamest edit war? No doubt, and it's not the first of it's kind, but I'm not the one who was in the wrong. Twsx has been warned and reverted by plenty of users. Circafucix, Kameejl, Scipo and some IP users to name a few. Anyways, I'm not so sure me and Twsx will come to any concession. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, generally it takes at least two stubborn people to make an edit war; the test will be to see what Twsx does not month. If he continues to make that edit and is still reverted by multiple other accounts then firmer steps will be taken. Has he been doing the same thing at other articles? Thatcher 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
AN3RR
Hello Thatcher, I agree with what you wrote about disruptive editing, but I didn’t think that AN3RR was the place to handle that particular case. That rather silly edit war started nearly 4 months ago and, while it breaks the spirit of the policy, it doesn’t come even close to 4 reverts in 24 hours. I like your solution, by the way - if they’ll abide by it - but I still think that AN/I would have been a better forum. Cheers —Travistalk 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Segregation of complaints is for our convenience but it is not meant to be a straightjacket. Thatcher 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Request block
I'd like to request a block on User: 68.207.126.117 and User: Lady armida for their edits on Baba Raul Canizares. They seem to have to other reason for being in Wikipedia, and have edited several times violating WP: Bio by adding massive insupported derogatory material. One has been warned more than once, and I suspect that the other is the same person but not logged in, since the material is identical. Please look into this? Rosencomet (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom enforcement gone stale
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive14#User:75.72.88.121. This user is still editing, and is still inserting mass POV problems into the article, despite being blocked for it twice before (once under IP which he steadfastly and not believably claims isn't his). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see that he is editing, make a new report at WP:AE showing that these edits are disruptive or in violation of the probation. Thatcher 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Appletrees added myself and others to the list, after you completed the last checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki. As far as I can see, there's no rationale for adding myself there, and perhaps the same applies for most of the others. Will you please clarify in the report, whether Appletrees is abusing the system now?
I sense that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks may need to be revisited if WP:BATTLE is being violated here.
Thank you for your help.--Endroit (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit, you're so contradictory to what you've done. RFCU tool is one of your favorite tools so far (12 RFCU files by you). You're also very quick to catch my recent contributions and so calm at the obvious meatpuppetry from 2channel. It is also contradictory to your ANI report when I reverted your one edit.
See these RFCU files reported by you Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639, which had no evidence but your assumption, and just accused Korean editors of socks. Obviously, the final result appeared to be very disappointing to you. I added some valid evidences. If you're innocent, you can worry about yourself. Japanese socks /open proxy users have vandalised to J-K related article and as the result, Namdaemun and South Korea article are under protection. --Appletrees (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Appletrees, I fail to see your rationale for adding me and others under "Code letter: C, E, F" as a sockpuppet of "2008FromKawasaki". Please clarify.--Endroit (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit, be patient. I provide evidences to Thatcher, not you. He has his own judgment, so just wait for his answer. You didn't accused me to AirFrance's sock but Ech...somting83 and infinitely banned user, Appleby. I need to hear about your rationale on that first. Besides, why do you so care about other listed people? If they're not related to you, you don't need to worry it much. You only need your innocence.--Appletrees (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, your saying just proves your inconsistency to your past behaviors. You might need to read these useful article again. WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:SOCK along with the WP:BATTLE. Why don't you also give your input to the wonderful meat dolls at Talk:Sea of Japan? huh? --19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs)
- If it was just a case of misusing checkuser to gain position in a content dispute, I would not expect to find so many positive hits on these checks. There are good faith editors on both sides but there are also apparently some people who are misbehaving, and I'm not sure how to deal with it as a long-term problem. Thatcher 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Thatcher. I know that the checkusers have been doing a nice job already, and you can always go back to this arbcom case to get a 3rd opinion from others. Although I am not privy to the information you have, after the numerous successful RFCUs in the last 2 years, I see that the number of (Korea vs. Japan) reverts is down from upwards of 100 reverts in a day in 2006 to just 3 reverts a day yesterday. The current revert war appears to be between Drop the soap! (talk · contribs) and Princesunta (talk · contribs), and perhaps someone should semi-protect the articles they are reverting.--Endroit (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no 3 revert. You mislead this thread. However, I should bear in my mind of the Princesunta's reverting articles that Azukimonaka, Amazonfire, 2008FromKawasaki tried to erase. I am so wondering why you keep silent about Japanese meatpuppet/sockpuppets? Isn't is a very shameful misconduct for Japanese project? --Appletrees (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that Azukimonaka was just as disruptive, and is perhaps related to Kamosuke. All revert warriors are disruptive on BOTH sides, especially if they revert across multiple articles without much discussion. I think we should request arbcom to extend their "Liancourt Rocks article probation" (and the "New rules of conduct") to more articles, based on where the revert warring occurs.--Endroit (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not BOTH side, but just Japanese side at this time. The ill-faith editors from 2channel should be blamed for these disruptions. You must not confuse this situation with Liancourt Rocks probation. You are also major player from Japanese side, so please don't evade the subject.--Appletrees (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that Azukimonaka was just as disruptive, and is perhaps related to Kamosuke. All revert warriors are disruptive on BOTH sides, especially if they revert across multiple articles without much discussion. I think we should request arbcom to extend their "Liancourt Rocks article probation" (and the "New rules of conduct") to more articles, based on where the revert warring occurs.--Endroit (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit is on the wrong side of the ocean, so you can leave him out of further speculations. File a new separate request on Saintjust that focuses on the evidence connecting those accounts. Thatcher 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I make a new report on Saintjust and think I have to make another file on Princesunta (talk · contribs). He is an obvious sock who acts very similar to Azukimonaka or Opp2. However, Endroit's condoning 2channel (he might be related to that) and his several break times also give me several big questions in my mind. --Appletrees (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please go easy with your assumptions, Appletrees. I do not condone canvassing by 2channel users, and I am not related to 2channel.--Endroit (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit, please show a good example first before saying to someone like that. Didn't you take advantage of Thatcher's previous comment on me? That is very bad faith. You accused me a meatpuppet because I reverted your edit. You so quickly rushed into ANI unlike me giving plenty of time for Japanese meat puppets to stop the disruption. And you could be very generous to stalkers if your every single edits have been monitored by someone like Nanshu (talk · contribs) and stalked for over 2 months by Mochi (talk · contribs), Kusunose (talk · contribs), Amazonfire (talk · contribs) did to me. I was disappointed at Kusunose of whom I thought fair editors once. --Appletrees (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- If editors associated with 2chan are causing problems, that could be a matter for discussion (RFC, mediation, etc) but it is not a matter for checkuser. Thatcher 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR
- Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
- On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
- On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
- On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
- On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop cross posting. I have already replied here: User_talk:Jossi#Please_cancel_an_edit_violating_The_3RR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
AE
Do you want to keep the resolved section or not? It doesn't matter to me. Your choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don'r mind either way, if you can get the bot to leave it alone. Thatcher 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Sorry for the edit conflict. I didn't see we were editing at the same time. I'm OK to post my answers separately of course. Can you unblock so that I can proceed? Regards PHG (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I set it to 10 minutes, its probably over already. Let me check. Thatcher 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Ban 2
Sorry it took me a whil to get back to you. I agree with what you said. As far as I know Twsx has only been warring on the Amon Amarth page and the Dissection (band) page. However, I know he has recieved warnings about WP:OWN on the nu metal article and has run into problems with that and articles having to do with nu metal bands. I honestly don't know that much about those things, though, as I do not edit the nu metal page or any bands that are nu metal. Not my territory. I mostly edit things I enjoy. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Restoring evidence I would like to appeal
[4] I hope that the topic ban can at least partially retracted e.g. for articles for which I was the only serious contributor and for which no serious problems were ever reported. E.g. Sathya Sai Baba movement. I fail to see how topic banning the only serious contributor could possibly help Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on why you wanted to restore the discussion that you wanted removed before. You certainly can file an appeal; use the request for clarification section of WP:RFAR and the new template provided in the instructions there. Thatcher 11:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why I want to restore the discussion is to enable people to look at the discussion in preparation for my appeal. I admit that they could also have looked at the history. Andries (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess it's up to you since it concerns you. Thatcher 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why I want to restore the discussion is to enable people to look at the discussion in preparation for my appeal. I admit that they could also have looked at the history. Andries (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Thatcher,
Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive edits to a number of articles, specifically Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi (all 3 are related articles) by using multiple socks and open proxies. He was initially blocked by JodyB (talk · contribs), check [5]. MarkPC (talk · contribs) who was initially confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but later managed to escape by saying that he only edits Devadasi. But the account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12],[13], [14] while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. These are all socks of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) (username same as article name) or Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check [15]. Request you to take action against Saedirof (talk · contribs) who has a history of pushing POV using socks. See his latest edits [16], [17], [18] where he has deleted multiple references.
Also note the strong similarity in sentence structure of Saedirof's edit-summary "reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user" [19] and MarkPC (talk · contribs)'s edit-summaries [20], [21]. Look at the way they both allege that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user before reverting. MarkPC (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs). This was confirmed but he escaped by saying he never edited anything other than Devadasi. In any case Saedirof (talk · contribs) must be banned for abusing using socks. See how he keeps blanking his talk page)[22], [23] where the info that he has abused using socks been clearly put by an admin JodyB (talk · contribs) [24] for using socks.
Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Help with degenerating Arbcom thread
Hello. Can I ask you, as an outside admin and ArbCom clerk, to review the happenings at my request for clarification of the Ferrylodge decision? A user with whom I've had problems past and present, NCdave, showed up to post a "view" consisting mostly of criticism of me ([25]). Subsequently, Strider12, a user about whom I've filed an active RfC, also showed up to continue in the same vein ([26]). I believe her participation may have been canvassed by NCdave ([27]). Obviously, this pile-on has nothing to do with the narrow clarification I requested. I'm a big boy; I don't mind a bit of abuse, but I find myself getting very annoyed, baited, and tempted to say something I shouldn't. Can I ask you to review this situation with an eye toward restoring order?
As a heads-up and full disclosure, I have an active request for help with issues related to NCdave at WP:AN/I#More help. Separately, regarding the actual issue at hand with the clarification, do you think there's sufficient guidance from ArbCom to apply the remedy to the talk page, or should I await more input? I asked Newyorkbrad this question and his reply was that it varies from case to case. Given that the thread is degenerating into argumentation, I'd prefer to close it if you feel there's sufficient guidance from ArbCom. Thanks - MastCell Talk 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland
Note to all: As much as I love this case, I will be away from my computer for about 2 hours, and then available only intermittently for the next 3 hours, so if you want to yell at me or shake my hand you will have to wait in line. Thatcher 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Special Barnstar | ||
For doing what had to be done. DurovaCharge! 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC) |