User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Popartpete

Email me one of the messages please. Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sent. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to block the editor but the editor had already been dispatched. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Popartpete has emailed me claiming ignorance of the rules and reform. I'm not sure if I should believe him, but I will assume good faith for now. I have instructed him on the proper method of referenceing his book, and how to appeal his ban. I told him not to use his IP in the meantime so it doesnt get blocked. What do you think?Drew Smith What I've done 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate the desire to assume good faith, of course. And if Popartpete puts up a decent and cogent unblock request that addresses the problems that led to his block, I'd support giving him another chance. To be sure, his e-mails did suggest an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedures, which might suggest allowing an unblock sooner than WP:SO would recommend. In any case, the best thing he can do is do a standard unblock request. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I had no idea you could generate diffs of differences between separate articles. Can you tell me please how it's done? Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty simple actually. Get the revision IDs of the two page revisions you want to compare, say 289170483 and 289073637, and you want the second one to be your "previous version". Then put this in your address bar: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=289073637&diff=289170483. The trick is to put the "previous" revision in oldid= and the "newer" revision in diff=. The title= that you generally see is unnecessary. Let me know if you have any further questions about this! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I have replied Amicaveritas (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, This entire matter is proving to be exceedingly frustrating. If you can assist in any way - you seem good at mediating I'd appreciate it. I am currently being barracked with policy and my concerns are being ignored. Policy regarding Biographies of Living individuals is being ignored. It seems that the is no responsible policing of this. Established editors seem far more interested in leaping to the defense of established editors. I am wondering if allowing free editing in these cases is such a good idea. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to your earlier response... as to stepping in... I'll take a look. My best advice to you is that, while you may be correct that there's a potential legal threat (even if it's not from you or people you represent), the verbiage you've used in expressing your concerns is capable of being badly misconstrued. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support?

I am nominating myself for the mediation committee. If you could drop by and leave a comment at the nomination page, that would be greatly appreciated. I have enjoyed working with you in the past, and hope to continue to do so.Drew Smith What I've done 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to do your best and help out where you feel you're best suited... and I've posted there with some character support, but I've got to say that without more substantial involvement in lesser mediation venues (e.g., WP:MEDCAB or the various content noticeboards), I don't think it's likely MEDCOM will consider you for membership at this time. I don't mean to discourage you at all, however! You've done a bang-up job at WP:EAR to date, and I can tell that you've got the spirit to mediate more serious things, but since MEDCOM is essentially the supreme court of content disputes, they're going to want you to have resolved some serious disputes (especially ones between established editors) before considering you for the job. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought ArbCom was the "supreme court". I assumed MedCom was in between EAR and ArbCom seeing as EAR is informal, and ArbCom actually has power. I genuinely thought MedCom was the logical next step. Well, whether its too early or not, I'm going to leave it there. If I don't make it, I could use the constructive criticism, and if I do make it, well, all the better. Thanks for the support...er... half support, lol. Drew Smith What I've done 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh... ArbCom is more about finding arbitrary solutions to problems, especially ones where there's concerns of abuse. MedCom is for content disputes almost exclusively, and they generally take on the really nasty ones that haven't been resolved by EAR, MedCab, etc. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, whether I actually have a shot or not, thats exactly what I want. I'm tired of getting EAR's where one party geniuinly wants to improve the article and the other party refuses to comunicate. At least at MedCom both parties agree to getting help, and will usually follow the advice given.Drew Smith What I've done 23:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I don't blame ya- every once in a while I kinda get bored of the same-old at EAR too. Though... sometimes you've gotta be careful what you wish for; as some of the current threads on my talk page may indicate, there's potential for a big-ass headache if you get mixed up in the wrong dispute. In any case, I think if you really do want to go for MedCom, you might want to put in some work at MEDCAB, which is a lot less formal than MedCom, but will get you more involved disputes than you'll find on EAR. I know they've got a dire need for more help too. Like I said, I mean no discouragement- if you feel you're up to MedCom, and can show it to the folks there, more power to you! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dean Cochran's Year of Birth

Let me just say something really quick and I don't want a controversial edit now. I want you to go to Yahoo! or Google and type the search "Dean Cochran" in quotes and the type "1969" then click on search then you will see "Dean Cochran" or "1969". I found one more site that has a year of birth "1969" is at www.geocities.com/cinemorgue2/deancochran.html, And another one in French at www.commeaucinema.com/personne=dean-cochran,18517.html in French. Don't listen to User:Saintdean's comments. I have made real sources from other websites and IMDb is wrong. If you read my comments let me know. Steam5 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the sources you've got for 1969 are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, whereas the source I've provided for 1972 is considered reliable by that same policy. If you can find a reliable source which says 1969, then we've got a source conflict, which means we remove the date of birth entirely. Also, please assume good faith if possible- I've seen no reason to believe that Saintdean is lying. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I made some comments on the article's talk page of Dean Cochran. Go to the talk page of Dean Cochran and then you will see my for the the sourced information if www.ganeshaspeaks.com/celebrity/1969/3/dean-cochran.jsp and www.geocities.com/cinemorgue2/deancochran.html to be sourced. Both sites should say "1969" and I believe that GaneshaSpeaks.com should've been sourced for it's date of birth. Again, go to the article's talk page of Dean Cochran. Steam5 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your editing of scores of IP discussion pages with sockpuppet tags

Why did you do that? What Wikipedia policy are you furthering? Tennis expert (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've explained this to you before, which you've acknowledged. In the case of Korlzor, CheckUser and SPI have decided that Korlzor is the sockmaster, and thus the sockmaster is the person/account who used those IPs. Not the sockpuppets. By tagging IP talk pages with two to five or even more {{IPsock}} templates, each referring to a different registered account, it inconveniences editors who want to look at the case for the first time.
And in response, mightn't the creation of several redundant category pages be seen as feeding the trolls? While WP:DENY doesn't apply to sockpuppetry as it does for other forms of vandalism for the reason of tracking abuse, having editors dedicate that much time and space to an individual person may be seen as a badge of honor by that person, and all the impetus he or she needs to continue disruptive behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That's merely your opinion, not based on policy. And as I have told you before and as my edits have demonstrated, I am completely opposed to the types of edits you made. So, given the opposition, I still don't understand why you did it. Sounds very uncooperative to me, which behavior I'm sure is something you don't condone. Finally, you have no experience with the two editors in question. We (myself and many other editors) have made lots of progress fighting their vandalism and disruption without suddenly changing the strategy. I would appreciate your undoing the edits as a good faith gesture to me (since you use AWB and I do not) or at least not opposing my undoing them. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, vandals and serial sockpuppeters get some sort of sick pleasure out of the sort of chase you're giving them. Like the outlaw taking pot shots at his "WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE" poster. Furthermore, I don't appreciate you telling me to effectively keep my nose out of things I'm not previously involved in- it's just plain unfriendly. This is an unbelievably minor detail. Frankly, all I see here is you and me; I'm not going to roll over because you say there are "others" when by all appearances there are not. I don't see a strategy in doing what you're doing; just effectively creating more paperwork.
You really didn't seem opposed to this sort of change; your initial reply seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of why I wrote you, and your speedy archival seemed like an agreement. However, I'd gladly undo this myself if there were some sort of outside ruling here. Would you mind waiting while I post a question at WT:SPI or elsewhere about this first? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Check out WT:SPI#Question over tagging sock IPs for the discussion I just started. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Another biased assumption of bad faith by you and another assumption of agreement based on your simply posting on someone's discussion page. I did not tell you to "effectively keep your nose out of things you're not previously involved in". I simply said you had not been previously involved in our (yes, it's "our" not "my") anti-disruption efforts concerning the two editors in question and that our strategy had proven effective. Sorry if you don't see the difference. I'm going to undo your AWB edits to return the discussion pages to the status quo, per WP:BRD. If consensus develops to follow your method, then the pages can be changed back at that time. Tennis expert (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The debate all seems rather surreal and puzzling. I have just counted 103 reverts. It seems strange to me that someone would want to waste their time to do that, unless of course their time was not precious. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What does taking the time to count them say about your time management? Following me around and making posts like the above is just the latest example of your ongoing unconstructive behavior. Or perhaps it's more trolling on your part? Tennis expert (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
You're taking this one exceedingly personally, so I'll disengage; your attacking me like that may make you feel superior although it won't make you look any smarter. FYI, contribution histories of 50 entries per page made it easy for me, and I can just about add 50 + 50 + 3. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Sorry to hijack your talk page, Mendaliv. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To Tennis expert: I'm sorry, but maybe I misread what you said. When you said above, "Finally, you have no experience with the two editors in question. We (myself and many other editors) have made lots of progress fighting their vandalism and disruption without suddenly changing the strategy", it struck me as telling me to stay out of matters that I "have no experience with". If that was not your intended meaning, I apologize, but I still intend to discover what consensus, if any, there is regarding your use of {{IPsock}}. I'd also like to apologize if the analogy I drew above was inaccurate in any case- I am given to making such comparisons, and I hope that you'd give some leeway in that matter.
I genuinely did not understand your initial response to my suggestion at your talk page; it just seemed to me that you said you'd prefer to have the {{IPsock}} tags point to Wikitestor rather than Korlzor, despite the SPI clerk's decision to label Korlzor as the sockmaster. I responded to that, and some time later you removed the entire talk section without an edit summary- leaving me free to assume anything. If you were still opposed to what I said, why did you not say something at that time? We could have gone straight to discussing this elsewhere instead of going through an unnecessary edit-revert cycle.
Also, I'm sorry to press this matter, but exactly who else has been involved in fighting this? I only saw you involved in creating those {{IPsock}} pages, which is the particular strategy to which I'm opposed. I'd be gladdened if you could either ask those others involved to comment at WT:SPI or at least let me know who they are so I can ask them.
Thank you for reverting the edits, though I really would have done so myself via AWB if you'd made the point of insisting upon it per WP:BRD. I'll be glad to discuss this with more parties, though I may just bring the individual suspected sock categories to CfD, which may have been the thing for me to do in the first place. What do you think? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll also note that you have been asked not to do this before by an SPI clerk. Tennis expert, would you please provide some evidence of a consensus in your favor? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed this concern elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(1) I hereby request that you undo the edits in question that I have not already undone, per WP:BRD. Thanks for your offer to do this! (2) It is an undeniable fact that Wikitestor came before Korlzor, and I have pointed out this error before in other arenas. (3) Please assume nothing when I do not respond to a post of yours on my discussion page. Silence there does not equal anything. Tennis expert (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Examples of others involved: HJensen, HJensen, Capricorn42, GlassCobra, Locke Cole, GlassCobra, Chasingsol, CardinalDan, GlassCobra, Damicatz, Shirulashem, GlassCobra, Download, J.delanoy, HexaChord, Jackol, Thingg, HexaChord, HJensen, Capricorn42, GlassCobra, Pmlinediter, Closedmouth, Neurolysis, HJensen. If you need more examples, then I suggest that you go through the relevant history pages. Tennis expert (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finally providing evidence of other users who have engaged in this behavior. I'll have to message each and request that they read the WT:SPI thread, and if possible comment.(stricken per response below) I strongly suggest you respond to Nixeagle's most recent response and discuss things along the lines he's suggesting, rather than using this as a chance to argue about who the sockmaster is in the Korlzor case.
I'm sorry to go back on something I've said, but I do not intend to go through the trouble of reverting any edits at this time, despite the request for WP:BRD (as simple as it may seem, AWB isn't what you may think). The reason for this is that the spirit of WP:BRD has been accomplished- that is, by my making a BOLD edit or series of edits, an otherwise silent editor or group of editors has engaged in discussion. The revert is an intermediary step by which the party performing the BOLD edit is encouraged to engage in discussion. As we are engaged in discussion, this intermediary step is superfluous. I will, however, immediately go through a revert cycle on those IP pages should a consensus to do so be reached.
And in response to your having addressed the concern above elsewhere, could you please show where you did this? All I see is a response which is analogous to your response to my initial complaint; that is, primarily disputing who the sockmaster in the Korlzor case is. I have said this before, and I will say it as many times as you repeat that same argument; this issue has nothing to do with who the sockmaster is in the Korlzor case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that; most of those diffs are automated reverts by users using Huggle because the IP addresses attempted to remove those tags. Please refer to the edit summaries for each one- they're almost all reverting to your edits where you added those tags. This is not evidence of consensus that multiple {{IPsock}} tags on a single user talk page are appropriate; it's evidence of consensus that suspected sockpuppetry tags should not be removed by the account or IP to which they are applied. I ask you again, please provide some evidence that other users agree that multiple {{IPsock}} templates belong on a single user talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Reverting is agreement with the previous version. No one is prevented from partially reverting anything. And some of the diffs I provided you are original edits. As I said before, if you want more evidence, go through the history pages yourself. I've spent enough time on this already. Because you are shockingly reneging on your offer, I will revert your AWB edits myself. Tennis expert (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, reverting is not an agreement with the content to which the editor is reverting. Take for example when potentially libelous material is reverted out of a WP:BLP article, and the article itself protected. Neither of those actions are endorsements of the version being kept, and in fact the protection is explicitly stated not to be so. In this case, the IP editor's removal of the sock tags was reverted because that removal was considered objectionable. And as to the original edits you gave, the only ones were by HJensen, who I've asked to comment. I'm going to add a breakdown of all the diffs below to explain.
Why exactly do you think those edits should be reverted at this time instead of later on? Assuming good faith, I can see no purpose for you to waste your own time reverting those edits when we could be rationally discussing the actual issue here. I request that you explain your actions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Breakdown of diffs provided by Tennis expert above:

  1. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.213.146 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  2. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.196.103 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  3. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.8.123 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  4. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.196.103 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  5. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.8.123 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  6. contributions Reverted edits by 81.184.39.28 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  7. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.196.103 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  8. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.213.146 to last version by (HG) (edit summary error; should say "Tennis expert")
  9. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.239.248 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  10. contributions Reverted edits by 24.61.111.166 (talk) to last version by Shirulashem (which was diff 247423948, #9 above)
  11. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.9.15 to last revision by 82.124.241.29 (HG) (contributions, from all appearances, being Tennis expert editing logged out)
  12. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.9.15 to last revision by Download (HG) (which was diff 273475910, or #11 above)
  13. contributions Reverted edits by 81.184.39.167 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  14. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.9.15 to last revision by J.delanoy (HG) (which was diff 273476106, or #12 above)
  15. contributions Reverted edits by 81.184.70.66 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  16. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.212.152 to last version by Thingg (HG) (which was diff 263256249, or #15 above)
  17. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.213.146 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
  18. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.196.103 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  19. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.213.63 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  20. contributions Reverted edits by 81.184.39.9 (talk) to last version by Tennis expert
  21. contributions Reverted edits by 62.57.212.4 to last version by Tennis expert (HG)
    As to the "original edits" in the diffs you provided, all were contributions's edits (who I have asked to comment on this case at WT:SPI):
  22. User talk:81.184.65.133
  23. User talk:62.57.9.20
  24. User talk:62.57.213.178
  25. User talk:62.57.213.98

I've already requested that you substantiate your claim that multiple editors have supported your use of multiple {{IPsock}} tags on user talk pages. All I see are editors who support the well-founded consensus that editors should not remove sockpuppetry notices from their own, or their suspected sockpuppets', talk pages. Tennis expert suggests that because the editors did not "partially revert" in any of these cases, it stands as an endorsement of the content being restored. This is a fallacious, and moreover dangerous assumption. When an administrator reverts the addition of potentially libelous content to a WP:BLP, it in no way endorses the content present before said content was introduced. In this case, the IP editor frequently blanked the talk pages, or made otherwise vandalistic edits, specifically ones that would interfere in what appeared to be ongoing sockpuppetry investigations. I personally would have reverted the IPs' edits had I not known that Korzlor and Wikitestor were one and the same. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've already explained to you everything that needs to be explained. I've suggested how you can find additional evidence. And we're not talking about libel here. You simply disagree with me. Tennis expert (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And I've done the exact same for you, quite frankly. Yes, I simply disagree with you. And where there is disagreement, should we not find a consensus if it exists, and if it does not, should we not encourage the creation of one? And, you're right- we aren't talking about libel. We're talking about whether a revert endorses the content being restored. You've said it does, and I've refuted that broad statement. How is this necessarily different? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent again) Considering there appears to be an emergent consensus at WT:SPI that such use of multiple tags is incorrect at best, and that you seem to be the only person who has ever supported such tagging, I believe it would be appropriate to depopulate those redundant suspected sockpuppet categories yet again and have them deleted. As to whether it's appropriate to remove all instance of the {{IPsock}} templates from any or all of those pages is not something I'm looking forward to addressing... and frankly, I wouldn't have cared if Nixeagle hadn't made some decently convincing arguments in that vein. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the recommendation of PeterSymonds, a SPI clerk, I have depopulated the redundant categories again. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive_9&oldid=1207006504"