| Revision as of 20:40, 1 December 2007 editJinxmchue (talk | contribs)1,677 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 2 December 2007 edit undoCrockspot (talk | contribs)8,746 edits →User:67.135.49.177Next edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| How about doing something more constructive, like showing him the error of his way, rather than reverting a template which just enables and encourages the behavior that landed him here. ] 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | How about doing something more constructive, like showing him the error of his way, rather than reverting a template which just enables and encourages the behavior that landed him here. ] 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :: I disagree with your interpretation of his activity. He logged out months ago, which is completely within his rights as an editor. During his few edits under a dynamic IP, he has never hidden who he was. I never had any problem spotting him, so it is no great sleuth job to figure out. While he may be more prone to frustration than is ideal, he has legitimate positions on the issues he is passionate about. There are countless editors who edit under IP, and have dynamic addresses that change every few days. That is not a crime. As for me doing something positive, I am. I am trying to set a positive example for him on the article and talk page where he was blocked for edit warring. He did not technically violate 3RR there, as far as I can see, nor did any other editor. But if we are going to characterize what was going on there as an edit war, then he is not the only guilty party, and should not have been the only editor blocked. To me, this smacks of a pack of hyenas ganging up on an editor they do not agree with. I'm not about to stand idly by and watch him be abused. This is not the first time he has been singled out while other guilty parties were let off the hook. It takes more than one editor to make an edit war, and just because one editor is outnumbered does not make the group any less guilty. I have hesitated to get involved in the ID-related articles, because frankly, it isn't something I care about all that much. I'm pretty neutral on the subject. But I do care about fair treatment of editors, and neutrality in editing and sourcing articles. From what I have seen, the ID articles are controlled by a group of anti-ID editors. The problems I pointed out with the lead intro of ] are symptomatic of this problem, and only scratch the surface of the NPOV problems that permeate those articles. You can rest assured that I will be more active in those article in the future, and will do so well withing policy and guidelines, hopefully setting a positive example for all of you. I'm quite busy these days, and have not been on wiki as much as usual, but I will be keeping an eye on things, and will speak out strongly when I see a problem. - ] 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm admittedly violating what I said about not editing anything but my user pages until later with this, but this is a serious enough issue to warrant it. Monk, you need to provide evidence to back up your accusations of my alleged violations of 3RR, disruption and sockpuppetry or retract every single one of them. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that, though. ] 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | :I'm admittedly violating what I said about not editing anything but my user pages until later with this, but this is a serious enough issue to warrant it. Monk, you need to provide evidence to back up your accusations of my alleged violations of 3RR, disruption and sockpuppetry or retract every single one of them. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that, though. ] 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:11, 2 December 2007
As of August 2007, inactive discussions are archived by MiszaBot III after five days. See archive box for previous discussions.
|
Click here to leave a new message. |
Template:Archive box collapsible
User:67.135.49.177
Maybe if he hadn't been warned twice and simply deleted the warnings there'd be a case for lifting the block. Adam Cuerden 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, User:67.135.49.177 is Jinxmchue. Jinmchue has been editing from two IPs in order to avoid scrutiny. These edits consists of edit warring only. This has resulted in multiple 3RR vios, disruption and at least one block. He's clearly using IPs to avoid having his bad behavior not associated with his main account, Jinxmchue. That falls under the defintion of sock puppetry at WP:SOCK: "alternate accounts ... a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternate account may result in being blocked from editing."
How about doing something more constructive, like showing him the error of his way, rather than reverting a template which just enables and encourages the behavior that landed him here. FeloniousMonk 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with your interpretation of his activity. He logged out months ago, which is completely within his rights as an editor. During his few edits under a dynamic IP, he has never hidden who he was. I never had any problem spotting him, so it is no great sleuth job to figure out. While he may be more prone to frustration than is ideal, he has legitimate positions on the issues he is passionate about. There are countless editors who edit under IP, and have dynamic addresses that change every few days. That is not a crime. As for me doing something positive, I am. I am trying to set a positive example for him on the article and talk page where he was blocked for edit warring. He did not technically violate 3RR there, as far as I can see, nor did any other editor. But if we are going to characterize what was going on there as an edit war, then he is not the only guilty party, and should not have been the only editor blocked. To me, this smacks of a pack of hyenas ganging up on an editor they do not agree with. I'm not about to stand idly by and watch him be abused. This is not the first time he has been singled out while other guilty parties were let off the hook. It takes more than one editor to make an edit war, and just because one editor is outnumbered does not make the group any less guilty. I have hesitated to get involved in the ID-related articles, because frankly, it isn't something I care about all that much. I'm pretty neutral on the subject. But I do care about fair treatment of editors, and neutrality in editing and sourcing articles. From what I have seen, the ID articles are controlled by a group of anti-ID editors. The problems I pointed out with the lead intro of Discovery Institute are symptomatic of this problem, and only scratch the surface of the NPOV problems that permeate those articles. You can rest assured that I will be more active in those article in the future, and will do so well withing policy and guidelines, hopefully setting a positive example for all of you. I'm quite busy these days, and have not been on wiki as much as usual, but I will be keeping an eye on things, and will speak out strongly when I see a problem. - Crockspot 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm admittedly violating what I said about not editing anything but my user pages until later with this, but this is a serious enough issue to warrant it. Monk, you need to provide evidence to back up your accusations of my alleged violations of 3RR, disruption and sockpuppetry or retract every single one of them. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that, though. Jinxmchue 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)