Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
:::What's amusing is that you're not brave enough to make an overt accusation. What's more amusing is that you're monitoring my contribution history to see what and where I'm posting. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::What's amusing is that you're not brave enough to make an overt accusation. What's more amusing is that you're monitoring my contribution history to see what and where I'm posting. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::"stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages" - that's rather disingenuous of you, since you posted a CSD just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::"stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages" - that's rather disingenuous of you, since you posted a CSD just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm|talk]]) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Maybe I wasn't clear about my point below. Drop it. This is not the relevant place to continue your dispute, and continuing to do so will likely result in blocks. --[[User:Shirik|<span style="color:#005">Sh</span><span style="color:#007">i</span><span style="color:#009">r</span><span style="color:#00A">ik</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Shirik|<span style="color:#88C">Questions or Comments?</span>]])</small> 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I really don't have time to be dealing with this while I watch a Star Trek marathon on [[SyFy]]. Put simply, to answer your question, the "remedies available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations" are the same ones associated with [[WP:NPA]]. That being said, this really is not the way to handle it. First off, don't open an SPI case against yourself. Secondly, [[WP:CHECKUSER|checkuser]] cannot be used to prove innocence, for technical reasons. I suggest you two come to an agreement here, or find a [[WP:3O|third opinion]], or else what's going to end up happening is the page will get locked and individuals will begin to get blocked for general [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. --[[User:Shirik|<span style="color:#005">Sh</span><span style="color:#007">i</span><span style="color:#009">r</span><span style="color:#00A">ik</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Shirik|<span style="color:#88C">Questions or Comments?</span>]])</small> 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
::I really don't have time to be dealing with this while I watch a Star Trek marathon on [[SyFy]]. Put simply, to answer your question, the "remedies available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations" are the same ones associated with [[WP:NPA]]. That being said, this really is not the way to handle it. First off, don't open an SPI case against yourself. Secondly, [[WP:CHECKUSER|checkuser]] cannot be used to prove innocence, for technical reasons. I suggest you two come to an agreement here, or find a [[WP:3O|third opinion]], or else what's going to end up happening is the page will get locked and individuals will begin to get blocked for general [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. --[[User:Shirik|<span style="color:#005">Sh</span><span style="color:#007">i</span><span style="color:#009">r</span><span style="color:#00A">ik</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Shirik|<span style="color:#88C">Questions or Comments?</span>]])</small> 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:13, 29 May 2011
Improving the process for adding cases
I receive at least one message every other day asking me how to reopen an SPI case. I'm pretty sure this is because it's not crystal clear on the SPI page how to actually do that. Can we look at ways of improving either the top of the page (e.g. a link that says "REOPEN A CASE" or something) or some other options? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Create a template then put on the SPI page. Baseball Watcher 02:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will be trying to code it in Template:SPI report. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Made Template:ReopenSPI and added it to Template:SPI report. It is a button at the top of the page. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reopened this to allow a full discussion of all possible improvements. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- That template isn't a bad idea, but I'm not sure it's the most ideal solution. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reopened this to allow a full discussion of all possible improvements. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Made Template:ReopenSPI and added it to Template:SPI report. It is a button at the top of the page. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will be trying to code it in Template:SPI report. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No, but it's not really in line with the standard Wikipedia format. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
I thought of putting Comments by accused parties back in. I will be putting it in for now. If you revert, please explain why here. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I did revert, clerks somewhere, I can't really find where at the moment were at a consensus that the section needed to go. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think I did that in order to consolidate most of the sections; the "accused parties" section wasn't getting used very often, so I merged that into the "other users" section. –MuZemike 23:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for checkuser review at ACC
Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message
I've been accused of using sockpuppetry
Is it possible for me to open an SPI on myself to nip this in the bud? The (thinly veiled) accusation is right here [3]. Furthermore, what remedies/sanctions are available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations? Thanks. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I never said I was referring to you, but it is quite amusing that's automatically the conclusion you jumped to when an anonymous editor with no history in this article whatsoever popped up out of no where to defend your position. You can open an SPI on yourself if you'd like, but I wasn't planning on it. In the mean time, do both of us a favor and stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages and let other editors weigh in. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy the rest of my day outside with friends and family. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and the sactions you're thinking about are probably the same ones that exist against editors that file bogus 3RRs when they know they're wrong. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- What's amusing is that you're not brave enough to make an overt accusation. What's more amusing is that you're monitoring my contribution history to see what and where I'm posting. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- "stop dragging a content dispute across a dozen different Wikipedia pages" - that's rather disingenuous of you, since you posted a CSD just to make a point. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I wasn't clear about my point below. Drop it. This is not the relevant place to continue your dispute, and continuing to do so will likely result in blocks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't have time to be dealing with this while I watch a Star Trek marathon on SyFy. Put simply, to answer your question, the "remedies available against editors who make spurious sockpuppet accusations" are the same ones associated with WP:NPA. That being said, this really is not the way to handle it. First off, don't open an SPI case against yourself. Secondly, checkuser cannot be used to prove innocence, for technical reasons. I suggest you two come to an agreement here, or find a third opinion, or else what's going to end up happening is the page will get locked and individuals will begin to get blocked for general edit warring. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)