User talk:Looneyman/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Looneyman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

See something wrong? Fix it yourself!

Thank you for your suggestion regarding I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:189.20.220.98

Thanks for telling me he vandalized again. I requested a block, but you can always do it yourself if you want, at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. LittleMountain5 23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute notice on Top Gear article

Hi there. I added the dispute tag yesterday evening because of the edit war that User:Emma368 seems to be trying to stir-up. It was really to warn any 'drive-by' editors of the issue and put Emma368 on notice that he/she should not make any further edits on that topic without discussing it first. Apologies for answering here rather than an the article's talk page, I didn't want any reply to act as more 'bait' for Emma368. Hope that's OK. DrFrench (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. User:Emma368 doesn't really know when he/she's been defeated. On the subject of that user, you suggested here that Emma368 may be the same person as banned user Davesmith33. He/she hasn't replied to that comment so do you think it's worth taking it any further if he/she continues, since it may be a violation of the sockpuppet policy? Looneyman (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious that they are the same person; the editing 'style', disruptive tactics used and the comments made are virtually identical. I thought I'd ask an open, honest question to give him/her the opportunity to deny it and put the whole thing to rest - or to admit it and 'go public'. I guess everyone is entitled to a 'fresh start' if they want to change their ways - but they should at least be open about it. Unfortunately if it is the same person, he/she hasn't changed.

I was pondering going down the WP:SSP route yesterday, but wasn't sure if others thought the same as me. What do you think? Were you involved when the almost-identical edit-war took place about a year ago? DrFrench (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved in that edit war. It was only recently when I became interested in the Top Gear article. I mentioned Top Gear Stuntman and then Emma showed up starting the one-man crusade to get Top gear dog into the article. That said, I have looked at both histories and I think that they are the same person as well. They're far too similar to be a coincidence. Looneyman (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Emma368 Sockpuppet

I'm completely cool if you want to report Emma. I think it needs to be done, and I'll add whatever support I can. I've never been involved in anything like this, so far better someone with some know-how take the lead. --Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He/She has been reported as a possible sockpuppet. You can put your views on the case here. Looneyman (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to read Davesmith's history a but more fully, but I have noticed a common pattern in the use of boldface, along with the common themes you've noted, and perhaps a couple shared spelling errors. I'll go on record soon. --Drmargi (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've added some additional info to the sockpuppetry case, including a number of diffs in 'evidence'. DrFrench (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it. It all seems to add up... We'll have to see what the admins think of it. Looneyman (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit more evidence and a few thoughts. I read through Davesmith's stuff, and noticed one rather telling shared interest, which I pointed out, along with the boldface pattern I noted earlier. Not much, but hopefully it is done correctly and will help. --Drmargi (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page for the remainder of the block (about 50 hours or so). You should know, however, that users are allowed to remove warnings, even if for not the best of reasons, so Emma couldn't be blocked again just for that. (The exception is that you are not allowed to remove SSP notices (while active) or declined unblock requests). Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for telling me. It's just that people had kicked up a fuss when he removed his warnings before. Looneyman (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We might have another one: Godraegpot. He/she has two posts so far, one adding TGD to the History section, and the other updating the number of episodes. So far so good, but if you'll notice, the username is Top Gear Dog in reverse. One hates to jump to conclusions, but it might be worth keeping a eye on this one. --Drmargi (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Originally, I had an open mind as to whether this guy was Emma368. But now, after what happened on the Top Gear article, I onw agree that he is the same person. He's currently been blocked for violating the three revert rule. Looneyman (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear

Are you willing to reach a negotiated settlement re: the Top Gear issues, or do we carry on with the fun and games? Please see the Top Gear discussion page for more details. SabineSchmitz (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied to in asker's talk page. Looneyman (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You've all been too harsh

I think you guys have been too harsh on SabineSchmitz. if you look at the appropriate page, users with a bad reputation are entitled to a clean start. I think that what Sabine/Dave was trying to do, only to suffer extreme abuse and get banned for sockpuppetry. Why can't he be unblocked and just observed to see whether he goes back to his old games or not? Remember that good faith is, and I quote from the policy page, 'a fundamental principle on wikipedia'. Personally, I am willing to let this user stay and just keep an eye on him to be sure he doesn't go back to his old tricks again. Looneyman (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

A clean start does not include someone who has been blocked for disruptive behaviour, which Davesmith33 was. Evading a block is most definitely not a legitimate use of a sock puppet. See WP:EVADE, and then tell me if you still see any reason not to block further socks. _TalkIslander 16:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Islander, I have to say that most of what has happened over the last week is down to over zealous admins (such as yourself), who are personally involved with the content dispute, blocking me in a clear conflict of interests. I have stated I wish to resolve this ammicably, and as such, any further action is only likely to enflame the situation more.
Your blocking of the SabineSchmitz account, considering I had not done anything wrong with that user name, was both petty and self-defeating. HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, far from "petty and self-defeating", it was completely in line with policy - like I said, take a look at WP:EVADE (and take note that I did not block the initial Davesmith33 account). _TalkIslander 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, no offence, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't argue with each other on my talk page.

I've had a look at WP:EVADE and can see that Sabine is trying to circumvent a block. I'm just saying that I want to give Sabine the chance to redeem himself of his previous edit wars and incidents. However, if admins decide to block, I have npo power to argue. I'm just stating my opinion. Looneyman (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want an argument to ensue on your talk page, then use common sense and don't start a topic on it on such a flamable matter, and then further go and direct people to it on other talk pages ;). _TalkIslander 18:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We have ZERO evidence that Davesmith is a reformed character - after pleading for a reprieve, he goes off and produces yet another sock. He's not begging for forgiveness and promising all of the things we'd need promised - he's asking for a compromise for chrissakes! A compromise implies that all of the people who agreed that the bloody dog isn't a presenter and is only just barely worth a mention have to give up some of that position in order to allow an abusive editor of the worst kind back to continue editing the article? Why? What do those people get in return for their side of the compromise? They get an abusive editor back here. So NO! Davesmith does not deserve our respect. He should stay away - create no more socks - then MAYBE come back in a year and ask again. Even then, I'd hope we'd get assurances that none of the editors involved in the dispute would be hassled and that Mr Smith would refrain from editing any Top-Gear article ever again - and I'd want to see admin oversight for many months after a resumption of editing other articles.

Trust has to be earned. When trust is lost - it takes MUCH longer to re-earn it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"after pleading for a reprieve, he goes off and produces yet another sock." - Because I had been banned unfairly by a biased admin, Steve have you actually read what happened in the "early" days? It sounds like you are basing your opinion solely on what has happened in the past few weeks, which was basically me trying to workaround biased admin who were abusing their position of power.
"We have ZERO evidence that Davesmith is a reformed character" - Has there been any problems since I proposed a truce?
"What do those people get in return for their side of the compromise?" - A quiet life?
"I'd want to see admin oversight...." - Would that be the same admin (Islander) who was personally involved in the content dispute and who apparently wasn't biased?
HRHSabineSchmitz (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)