DrJamesX (
talk
+ ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
tag ·
block user ·
block log ·
CheckUser)
Less recent activity
(Note from Uwishiwazjohng) Please check the history of this page. User Switchintoglide removed text here that confuses the context. The identified themselves, saying they had edited the David Bowie page and saying that they could not be DrJamesX by using personal information.
Switchintoglide also said "I have also never made a legal threat towards you or anyone else, so that evidence is false."
Switchintoglide (
talk)
00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
"Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.
Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.
What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.
Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)" [1]
I am not a sock puppet of James. It should be clear to anyone who visits this, that uwishiwasjohng has simply accused everyone who has ever been to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quotseeky ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Closed with no action, per my comment above. If anyone can get some new data that is more persuasive, open a new SSP report and mention this one. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply
DrJamesX (
talk
+ ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
tag ·
block user ·
block log ·
CheckUser)
Less recent activity
(Note from Uwishiwazjohng) Please check the history of this page. User Switchintoglide removed text here that confuses the context. The identified themselves, saying they had edited the David Bowie page and saying that they could not be DrJamesX by using personal information.
Switchintoglide also said "I have also never made a legal threat towards you or anyone else, so that evidence is false."
Switchintoglide (
talk)
00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
"Switchintoglide, I see that you are trying to get help and that you are worried that I'm going to get you in trouble. When you stepped into this mess, you came in the middle of an edit war between DrJamesX and I. I can see that you are sincerely trying to appeal to admins.
Let's be adults about this and fix it ourselves. Let's do what we can to make reasonable edits. I want to work *with* you, not against you. I want this to be article to be accurate.
What do you say? I propose we continue to discuss the edits on the talk page and try to make the edits together.
Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)" [1]
I am not a sock puppet of James. It should be clear to anyone who visits this, that uwishiwasjohng has simply accused everyone who has ever been to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quotseeky ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Closed with no action, per my comment above. If anyone can get some new data that is more persuasive, open a new SSP report and mention this one. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply