![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You recently blocked Psts1st as one of the likely sockpuppets that have descended on Frank Gaffney. Could you also review Recordstraightsetter who is also a brand new editor who only made that change [1]? The backlog at SPI has left a number of his other socks floating around indefinitely so I thought it might be easier to just make a direct request. (For the record, for reasons based on off-Wiki knowledge, I believe there will be a coming deluge of newly minted editors attempting to make this change.) LavaBaron ( talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I take exception to this note. This user reverted a large amount of information by multiple editors made, apparently when the editor was on vacation. See these diffs: [ diff1] [ diff2] [ diff3] [ diff4] [ diff5] These edits removed language that added balance to these pages that were discussed on the talk pages. I regret there was no effort made to discuss this editor's massive changes on the talk pages. After these reverts were reversed several times, this editor started filing false SPI, SPA, meat puppet and other charges against me. This editor also has been complaining about me on multiple Wikipedia pages. I have posted this note because I don't want this editor's false comments to go unchallenged. I have backed out of making any further changes to these pages since I am tired of the bickering and I don't want to be involved in an edit war. It is my hope that other editors and admins will fix these pages over time because they have such obvious POV and RS problems. Perhaps my extensive talk comments on the Gaffney page will help. I have nothing to do with these alleged sock puppets and I resent this person continually making false charges against me. Zeke1999 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do block any accounts you think are sockpuppets. I've tried to follow Wikipedia rules. Users who break the rules to create accounts to delete text from articles I have been disputing aren't doing me any favors. I value my Wikipedia account and I'm not going to jeopardize it by doing something stupid. Best wishes. Zeke1999 ( talk) 10:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You probably have more knowledge in these matters, but since the ArbCom case is open, do you think it would be better to mention at the case's talk page the recent spat of edit warring at glyphosate (as opposed to AN3)? I'm wondering if it's just better to lock down the page until the case is over. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Guy, I have done some major upgrading on the BLHandler. It is only difficult to test everything, so there may be some errors which may bork the system. Please do double check after using it. It should now work for both XLinkBot's revertlist as well as the Spam-blacklist, and as sources it uses WT:WPSPAM, XLinkBot revertlist requests, the Spam blacklist talk and the /Local reports generated by COIBot. Happy hunting. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't saint be capitalized? Well...at least as it applies to your better half? (I hope it makes her smile when you tell her what I wrote, if you do.) While I appreciate your appreciation for humorous sarcasm, I actually do appreciate the giving of your time and steadfastness in your beliefs. Perhaps that tops the reasons for why I like you. I've always been a believer in,"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Happy editing! Atsme 📞 📧 18:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
for identifying a filehost in ANI, I deserve thanks Mahfuzur rahman shourov ( talk) 04:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, the links in those articles were already cleared as RS, other editors were involved and aware of the self-cite and the links are useful. What exactly are you attempting to do? Do you really believe you're helping to improve the encyclopedia with what you're doing? Atsme 📞 📧 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, there was an editorial board when the documentaries were produced, and every bit of that information was reviewed by renowned biologists and academics. The credit roll on the programs confirm it. The programs were televised internationally, and in the US on PBS affiliates. The PBS documentaries also serve as WP:V the same way any information in a transcript from any other PBS program would be WP:V. The fact that the website has the informaiton available in text simply made more sense to cite the text. Your actions are unwarranted, and certainly not helpful to WP. Why don't you just go ahead and remove all the video footage from those articles, too. I really don't care anymore what you do. You've proven to me now who you really are and what your motives are, and that is a major heartbreak for me. Atsme 📞 📧 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there something that can be done about the deadnaming left in the Brandon and Leah article regarding Caitlyn Jenner? As you have pointed out on CheckingFax's talk page, we just don't do it in Wikipedia. When the article was protected due to the deadnaming and DS violations, the wrong version was kept, but as far as I understand, it's a version against policy. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. I'm doing my best to follow policy. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks for taking some time out to examine and handle the issue with User:DN-boards1. In regards to cleaning up the mess they made, I nominated almost a dozen created or recreated articles from this user ( [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). I think that it's fine to let them run their course (unless there's a specific policy of immediate reversion based on the topic ban) because the consensuses on these are either years old or never explicitly stated, and thus a complete AfD will allow for quicker and less controversial action in the future, but I know that there's also a practice of tagging/striking out !votes and comments from blocked socks/topic banned individuals to make things clearer for the closing admin. DN-boards1 commented at every AfD but I do not want to tag/strike out their comments myself, since that might seem sketchy. Do you have any thoughts? Canadian Paul 20:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
For your creation of the page
Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, I award you The Brilliant Idea Barnstar.
Epic. — Cirt ( talk) 11:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for your action on this.
The sockmaster has been inactive but the sock IP is still active -- can you block that one as well, at least temporarily?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of my suggestion ?
— Cirt ( talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There once was a terrible admin whose operating system was multitasking so he banned in parallel the editors of body odour smell and then came the end of this poem
81.158.98.214 ( talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anonymous Fan
You blocked Sanstalk ( talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, and the reason is evident [13], yet in your blocking rationale you linked to the WP:HERE essay instead of an actual policy page. Do you think editors should be blocked for an essay reason in favor of a policy reason? Doc talk 11:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
For the remainder of the GMO case, you are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, and insinuating about SageRad on any of the case pages. If you have any evidence of self-stated conflicts of interest please email it to the committee. While I can't forbid you from interacting with them on other parts of the project, the committee will view continuing your behavior in another forum in a very dim light. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned you pseudo-critically at User talk:Tribscent08#Universal Medicine. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
See Marriage_squeeze
You reverted my edit when I used a secondary sources stating that it was not an appropriate source. Then you reverted my edit when I used two peer-reviewed primary sources. What evidence DO you find acceptable? AsianWeek apparently.
By deleting any explanation for the marriage squeeze that isn't based on negative attributes of African-American men, you are continuing with the racial stereotyping that is so damaging. There are scientists who believe in a more racially neutral explanation for the marriage squeeze (based on height or skin tone) but anyone reading wikipedia would not know that and are only getting the racist received wisdom that marrying a Black person is necessarily marrying down.
I am not asking you to adjudicate on which hypothesis you think is true, but just allow the wikipedia article to reflect ALL the various hypotheses that are in the scientific literature.
Please re-think your reverts. Nsxsvn ( talk) 08:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
JzG,
You previously commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Attention_needed_at_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FZeke1999.
No action has been taken at the case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 -- in over two (2) weeks.
Could use some admin action there, please.
Also: this one is an easy WP:DUCK case, with a smoking-gun-DIFF for ya: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.
The 2nd one involves ongoing disruption of our site's WP:GA Quality improvement process, socking, and block evasion -- so we could really use some admin action there as the problem issue is ongoing.
Thank you for taking a look,
— Cirt ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
What the heck does "phwooooaar!" mean? Is this something they failed to teach me during my year at a British university? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm feeling a little sad and down in the dumps. ArbCom is not where I want to be because I don't like being exposed to such negative thoughts about people we should respect and hold in high regard. It exposes our underbelly for all the world to see. I prefer to be behind the camera. At times it seems like ArbCom is survival of the fittest and I'm so out of shape it's not even funny. Que sera sera. I hold you and Tryptofish in high regard despite the fact you are both from what I affectionately refer to as the "other side"
. Your impression of me and several others is way off base but oh well, chacun a son gout (sorry this iPad won't allow me to place accents where they belong so you'll have to wing it). I was a bit of a science geek as a kid - had a microscope and dissecting kit when I was like 9 yrs. old - but it got me in a bit of trouble because of my curiousity over the derogatory term, "bird-brain". And no, it wasn't a term frequently used against me. I didn't know the mockingbird was the State bird of Texas; therefore, protected. I also didn't realize how tiny a bird brain actually is, or that it required a microscope far more powerful than the one Santa brought me.
Atsme
📞
📧
18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you strike out this comment? Thank you. Cheers! ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 07:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Why was this (opener: Samwalton9) RfC closed two days early? The default RfC duration's 30 days. I do genuinely think that as this involved something which, as you pointed out, is 'capable of causing more damage at a stroke than almost anything else', it should get at least the full 30 days. A guideline for the filter extension's been asked for for a long time; ending the discussion prematurely/early doesn't seem an obvious choice.
As you might imagine my interest isn't purely academic (I'd been working on it for a few days). As it stood, I'd have commented and opposed it, as inadequate to the point it's not fit for purpose. Additionally, major concerns already raised during the discussion hadn't yet been addressed imo. Obviously completing tasks early is attractive, but honestly if there was an RfC I'd never dream would be closed early it would've been this one. (By virtue of the above, affects so many etc.) Thanks -- 31.185.222.136 ( talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You recently blocked Psts1st as one of the likely sockpuppets that have descended on Frank Gaffney. Could you also review Recordstraightsetter who is also a brand new editor who only made that change [1]? The backlog at SPI has left a number of his other socks floating around indefinitely so I thought it might be easier to just make a direct request. (For the record, for reasons based on off-Wiki knowledge, I believe there will be a coming deluge of newly minted editors attempting to make this change.) LavaBaron ( talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I take exception to this note. This user reverted a large amount of information by multiple editors made, apparently when the editor was on vacation. See these diffs: [ diff1] [ diff2] [ diff3] [ diff4] [ diff5] These edits removed language that added balance to these pages that were discussed on the talk pages. I regret there was no effort made to discuss this editor's massive changes on the talk pages. After these reverts were reversed several times, this editor started filing false SPI, SPA, meat puppet and other charges against me. This editor also has been complaining about me on multiple Wikipedia pages. I have posted this note because I don't want this editor's false comments to go unchallenged. I have backed out of making any further changes to these pages since I am tired of the bickering and I don't want to be involved in an edit war. It is my hope that other editors and admins will fix these pages over time because they have such obvious POV and RS problems. Perhaps my extensive talk comments on the Gaffney page will help. I have nothing to do with these alleged sock puppets and I resent this person continually making false charges against me. Zeke1999 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do block any accounts you think are sockpuppets. I've tried to follow Wikipedia rules. Users who break the rules to create accounts to delete text from articles I have been disputing aren't doing me any favors. I value my Wikipedia account and I'm not going to jeopardize it by doing something stupid. Best wishes. Zeke1999 ( talk) 10:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You probably have more knowledge in these matters, but since the ArbCom case is open, do you think it would be better to mention at the case's talk page the recent spat of edit warring at glyphosate (as opposed to AN3)? I'm wondering if it's just better to lock down the page until the case is over. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey Guy, I have done some major upgrading on the BLHandler. It is only difficult to test everything, so there may be some errors which may bork the system. Please do double check after using it. It should now work for both XLinkBot's revertlist as well as the Spam-blacklist, and as sources it uses WT:WPSPAM, XLinkBot revertlist requests, the Spam blacklist talk and the /Local reports generated by COIBot. Happy hunting. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't saint be capitalized? Well...at least as it applies to your better half? (I hope it makes her smile when you tell her what I wrote, if you do.) While I appreciate your appreciation for humorous sarcasm, I actually do appreciate the giving of your time and steadfastness in your beliefs. Perhaps that tops the reasons for why I like you. I've always been a believer in,"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Happy editing! Atsme 📞 📧 18:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
for identifying a filehost in ANI, I deserve thanks Mahfuzur rahman shourov ( talk) 04:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, the links in those articles were already cleared as RS, other editors were involved and aware of the self-cite and the links are useful. What exactly are you attempting to do? Do you really believe you're helping to improve the encyclopedia with what you're doing? Atsme 📞 📧 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, there was an editorial board when the documentaries were produced, and every bit of that information was reviewed by renowned biologists and academics. The credit roll on the programs confirm it. The programs were televised internationally, and in the US on PBS affiliates. The PBS documentaries also serve as WP:V the same way any information in a transcript from any other PBS program would be WP:V. The fact that the website has the informaiton available in text simply made more sense to cite the text. Your actions are unwarranted, and certainly not helpful to WP. Why don't you just go ahead and remove all the video footage from those articles, too. I really don't care anymore what you do. You've proven to me now who you really are and what your motives are, and that is a major heartbreak for me. Atsme 📞 📧 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there something that can be done about the deadnaming left in the Brandon and Leah article regarding Caitlyn Jenner? As you have pointed out on CheckingFax's talk page, we just don't do it in Wikipedia. When the article was protected due to the deadnaming and DS violations, the wrong version was kept, but as far as I understand, it's a version against policy. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. I'm doing my best to follow policy. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks for taking some time out to examine and handle the issue with User:DN-boards1. In regards to cleaning up the mess they made, I nominated almost a dozen created or recreated articles from this user ( [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). I think that it's fine to let them run their course (unless there's a specific policy of immediate reversion based on the topic ban) because the consensuses on these are either years old or never explicitly stated, and thus a complete AfD will allow for quicker and less controversial action in the future, but I know that there's also a practice of tagging/striking out !votes and comments from blocked socks/topic banned individuals to make things clearer for the closing admin. DN-boards1 commented at every AfD but I do not want to tag/strike out their comments myself, since that might seem sketchy. Do you have any thoughts? Canadian Paul 20:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
For your creation of the page
Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, I award you The Brilliant Idea Barnstar.
Epic. — Cirt ( talk) 11:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for your action on this.
The sockmaster has been inactive but the sock IP is still active -- can you block that one as well, at least temporarily?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of my suggestion ?
— Cirt ( talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There once was a terrible admin whose operating system was multitasking so he banned in parallel the editors of body odour smell and then came the end of this poem
81.158.98.214 ( talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anonymous Fan
You blocked Sanstalk ( talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, and the reason is evident [13], yet in your blocking rationale you linked to the WP:HERE essay instead of an actual policy page. Do you think editors should be blocked for an essay reason in favor of a policy reason? Doc talk 11:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
For the remainder of the GMO case, you are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, and insinuating about SageRad on any of the case pages. If you have any evidence of self-stated conflicts of interest please email it to the committee. While I can't forbid you from interacting with them on other parts of the project, the committee will view continuing your behavior in another forum in a very dim light. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned you pseudo-critically at User talk:Tribscent08#Universal Medicine. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
See Marriage_squeeze
You reverted my edit when I used a secondary sources stating that it was not an appropriate source. Then you reverted my edit when I used two peer-reviewed primary sources. What evidence DO you find acceptable? AsianWeek apparently.
By deleting any explanation for the marriage squeeze that isn't based on negative attributes of African-American men, you are continuing with the racial stereotyping that is so damaging. There are scientists who believe in a more racially neutral explanation for the marriage squeeze (based on height or skin tone) but anyone reading wikipedia would not know that and are only getting the racist received wisdom that marrying a Black person is necessarily marrying down.
I am not asking you to adjudicate on which hypothesis you think is true, but just allow the wikipedia article to reflect ALL the various hypotheses that are in the scientific literature.
Please re-think your reverts. Nsxsvn ( talk) 08:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
JzG,
You previously commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Attention_needed_at_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FZeke1999.
No action has been taken at the case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 -- in over two (2) weeks.
Could use some admin action there, please.
Also: this one is an easy WP:DUCK case, with a smoking-gun-DIFF for ya: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.
The 2nd one involves ongoing disruption of our site's WP:GA Quality improvement process, socking, and block evasion -- so we could really use some admin action there as the problem issue is ongoing.
Thank you for taking a look,
— Cirt ( talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
What the heck does "phwooooaar!" mean? Is this something they failed to teach me during my year at a British university? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm feeling a little sad and down in the dumps. ArbCom is not where I want to be because I don't like being exposed to such negative thoughts about people we should respect and hold in high regard. It exposes our underbelly for all the world to see. I prefer to be behind the camera. At times it seems like ArbCom is survival of the fittest and I'm so out of shape it's not even funny. Que sera sera. I hold you and Tryptofish in high regard despite the fact you are both from what I affectionately refer to as the "other side"
. Your impression of me and several others is way off base but oh well, chacun a son gout (sorry this iPad won't allow me to place accents where they belong so you'll have to wing it). I was a bit of a science geek as a kid - had a microscope and dissecting kit when I was like 9 yrs. old - but it got me in a bit of trouble because of my curiousity over the derogatory term, "bird-brain". And no, it wasn't a term frequently used against me. I didn't know the mockingbird was the State bird of Texas; therefore, protected. I also didn't realize how tiny a bird brain actually is, or that it required a microscope far more powerful than the one Santa brought me.
Atsme
📞
📧
18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you strike out this comment? Thank you. Cheers! ... Checkingfax ( Talk ) 07:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Why was this (opener: Samwalton9) RfC closed two days early? The default RfC duration's 30 days. I do genuinely think that as this involved something which, as you pointed out, is 'capable of causing more damage at a stroke than almost anything else', it should get at least the full 30 days. A guideline for the filter extension's been asked for for a long time; ending the discussion prematurely/early doesn't seem an obvious choice.
As you might imagine my interest isn't purely academic (I'd been working on it for a few days). As it stood, I'd have commented and opposed it, as inadequate to the point it's not fit for purpose. Additionally, major concerns already raised during the discussion hadn't yet been addressed imo. Obviously completing tasks early is attractive, but honestly if there was an RfC I'd never dream would be closed early it would've been this one. (By virtue of the above, affects so many etc.) Thanks -- 31.185.222.136 ( talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)