I attempted to upgrade the article Ed Gein from an amateurish, sensationalistic style of writing that makes the grisly details of prime importance to a cool, detached professional level of writing that eschews such unencyclopedic writing and was dogged by LaVidaLoca who is using a sock to agree with me about the article's faults then claiming that her sock is actually me and sending me warnings about "sockpuppetry". She indicated a report is in the works about my "socking" though I've found no evidence of such a report. Claiming to file reports to the entire community can be disruptive. LaVidaLoca is now following me around to my other articles reverting my contributions in what I find to be a "Little Miss Smarty-Pants" style that is annoying and disruptive. She is now telling me one of my articles doesn't belong under the Kansas Project, and, while this may be true, I'd rather someone from the Kansas Project tell me rather than someone I suspect is trying to drive me from Wikipeidia because I advocate a professional style of reliably sourced writing rather than an amateurish, sensationalistic style which apparently is her preference. I left the Ed Gein article because "the old crowd" hanging out there seems to prefer the laugh-inducing, titillating Halloween House of Horrors grue style of writing rather than an objective, cool, professional style. While I appreciate learning the details of Wikipedia's style and policy, I wish it would come from someone other than she who appears to be dogging me in an attenpt to drive me completely from the premises. Check this user. While I want to assume good faith, I think User:LaVidaLoca is gaming the system with a sock to make it look like I'm the sock. Tre=poi ( talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a specious accusation that amounts more to a fishing expedition to deflect questions I raised about an IP that has never edited here before. The IP 64.252.140.1 traceroutes to Waterbury, Connecticut while I live in Ohio. The IP popped up immediately on Talk:Ed Gein to post support for Tre=poi on the talk page and then went straight to User talk:Tre=poi to post there, both postings by User talk:Tre=poi and the IP use similar language and descriptors. Fourteen minutes after the IP made those postings, Tre=poi posted a good article nomination notice on the talk page for a new article he had written. Given that at the time of those postings, User talk:Tre=poi had only been posting on Wikipedia for 4 days, this appeared very suspicious to me, and thus, considering WP:DUCK I confronted the editor about this. Of course, he denied it, but since the IP did not return to make other postings, I decided to drop it rather than pursue a sock investigation. When a brand new editor and an IP end up raising questions like this, it is not inappropriate to check other edits that were made by those editors. I have not reverted edits made by this editor inappropriately. I did remove excess project postings and left the relevant ones and I did so appropriately, in a non-confrontational manner. Since User:Tre=poi does not own the artice he wrote, it is ridiculous to claim that I am dogging him in an inappropriate manner. However, today, he deleted my posting explaining the rationale for removing the project banners from the article talk page, which is extremely inappropriate. Then again, how curious it is that an editor who had only been editing on Wikipedia for 4 days has written and nominated a brand new article for good article. Were I dogging him, I would have quick-failed the GA nomination because it does not meet GA criteria. This, though, is so much subterfuge that has nothing whatsoever to do with sockpuppetry, or in my case, the specious accusation of such. What a convoluted logic to claim that a long term editor on Wikipedia would go to the trouble of editing from an IP in order to "set someone up" or drive them away from Wikipedia. It's a ludicrous and fairly paranoid theory that is not based in any type of reality. This is a fishing expedition with no supporting evidence and I would request that this specious and ridiculous accusation be closed as unwarranted. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This clearly has more to do with shutting down Tre=poi's efforts to edit the Ed Gein article than with any sockpuppetry. There seems to be an intolerance to making any improvements to that article. -- Sift& Winnow 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note The following administrative (non-)actions have been taken (either by Brandon or by myself):
As with ItsLassieTime's previous SPI, these deletions are open to (community) discussion if need be. See the following relevant pages for reference and previous discussion:
MuZemike 06:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I attempted to upgrade the article Ed Gein from an amateurish, sensationalistic style of writing that makes the grisly details of prime importance to a cool, detached professional level of writing that eschews such unencyclopedic writing and was dogged by LaVidaLoca who is using a sock to agree with me about the article's faults then claiming that her sock is actually me and sending me warnings about "sockpuppetry". She indicated a report is in the works about my "socking" though I've found no evidence of such a report. Claiming to file reports to the entire community can be disruptive. LaVidaLoca is now following me around to my other articles reverting my contributions in what I find to be a "Little Miss Smarty-Pants" style that is annoying and disruptive. She is now telling me one of my articles doesn't belong under the Kansas Project, and, while this may be true, I'd rather someone from the Kansas Project tell me rather than someone I suspect is trying to drive me from Wikipeidia because I advocate a professional style of reliably sourced writing rather than an amateurish, sensationalistic style which apparently is her preference. I left the Ed Gein article because "the old crowd" hanging out there seems to prefer the laugh-inducing, titillating Halloween House of Horrors grue style of writing rather than an objective, cool, professional style. While I appreciate learning the details of Wikipedia's style and policy, I wish it would come from someone other than she who appears to be dogging me in an attenpt to drive me completely from the premises. Check this user. While I want to assume good faith, I think User:LaVidaLoca is gaming the system with a sock to make it look like I'm the sock. Tre=poi ( talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a specious accusation that amounts more to a fishing expedition to deflect questions I raised about an IP that has never edited here before. The IP 64.252.140.1 traceroutes to Waterbury, Connecticut while I live in Ohio. The IP popped up immediately on Talk:Ed Gein to post support for Tre=poi on the talk page and then went straight to User talk:Tre=poi to post there, both postings by User talk:Tre=poi and the IP use similar language and descriptors. Fourteen minutes after the IP made those postings, Tre=poi posted a good article nomination notice on the talk page for a new article he had written. Given that at the time of those postings, User talk:Tre=poi had only been posting on Wikipedia for 4 days, this appeared very suspicious to me, and thus, considering WP:DUCK I confronted the editor about this. Of course, he denied it, but since the IP did not return to make other postings, I decided to drop it rather than pursue a sock investigation. When a brand new editor and an IP end up raising questions like this, it is not inappropriate to check other edits that were made by those editors. I have not reverted edits made by this editor inappropriately. I did remove excess project postings and left the relevant ones and I did so appropriately, in a non-confrontational manner. Since User:Tre=poi does not own the artice he wrote, it is ridiculous to claim that I am dogging him in an inappropriate manner. However, today, he deleted my posting explaining the rationale for removing the project banners from the article talk page, which is extremely inappropriate. Then again, how curious it is that an editor who had only been editing on Wikipedia for 4 days has written and nominated a brand new article for good article. Were I dogging him, I would have quick-failed the GA nomination because it does not meet GA criteria. This, though, is so much subterfuge that has nothing whatsoever to do with sockpuppetry, or in my case, the specious accusation of such. What a convoluted logic to claim that a long term editor on Wikipedia would go to the trouble of editing from an IP in order to "set someone up" or drive them away from Wikipedia. It's a ludicrous and fairly paranoid theory that is not based in any type of reality. This is a fishing expedition with no supporting evidence and I would request that this specious and ridiculous accusation be closed as unwarranted. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This clearly has more to do with shutting down Tre=poi's efforts to edit the Ed Gein article than with any sockpuppetry. There seems to be an intolerance to making any improvements to that article. -- Sift& Winnow 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note The following administrative (non-)actions have been taken (either by Brandon or by myself):
As with ItsLassieTime's previous SPI, these deletions are open to (community) discussion if need be. See the following relevant pages for reference and previous discussion:
MuZemike 06:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |