| Revision as of 05:46, 6 May 2008 editSennen goroshi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers5,008 edits →User:Indecisean← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:15, 6 May 2008 edit undoNeon white (talk | contribs)12,023 edits →User:Indecisean | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :::::: One further comment, although sock puppetry is not acceptable in wikipedia, I would have to agree with the comments stating that you are a little eager to hand out vandalism warnings, I know you are not trying to troll users, but vandalism should only be stated for blatant acts of vandalism, not for content disputes. Try a revert with a clear summary, and then a message explaining why their edit is not acceptable. From my own personal experience with you, I can tell you that our constant revert cycle was not productive, the vandalism warnings you gave me just pissed me off and made me less eager to reach a compromise, however as soon as we hit the talk page, I felt much more confident about resolving our content dispute. ] (]) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | :::::: One further comment, although sock puppetry is not acceptable in wikipedia, I would have to agree with the comments stating that you are a little eager to hand out vandalism warnings, I know you are not trying to troll users, but vandalism should only be stated for blatant acts of vandalism, not for content disputes. Try a revert with a clear summary, and then a message explaining why their edit is not acceptable. From my own personal experience with you, I can tell you that our constant revert cycle was not productive, the vandalism warnings you gave me just pissed me off and made me less eager to reach a compromise, however as soon as we hit the talk page, I felt much more confident about resolving our content dispute. ] (]) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: I am pretty convinced that this is either the same person with a dynamic IP or several people working as a team which i believe is dealt with in the same way. There is a certain point where it becomes obvious that these edits are not being done to improve the article but to damage it by maintaining specualtive unsourced information which should always be removed from a ] article. I don't really consider this a content dispute as most of the edits are pretty minor 'clean up' issues like capitalising ] (hardly a controversial edit that needs intense discussion) and it is not being discussed so it can't really be a 'dispute' per se. I think the issue is with ] but it is unclear whether it is multiple or a single person. Regardless i have asked for a third opinion and hopefully they will ok the edits and deal with the ips that refuse to discuss the article properly. User talk:98.212.132.208 has only been warned about not assuming good faith. The first edit on the contribution page was to remove a comment I made on the talk page the second was a personal attack so i think the warning about assuming good faith was valid in this case. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Conclusions | ;Conclusions | ||
Latest revision as of 22:15, 6 May 2008
User:Indecisean
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Indecisean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
98.212.132.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.203.182.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.11.86.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
99.206.190.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.243.130.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--neonwhite user page talk 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence
History of this article The same edits, same content removal
similar bad faith accusations in the edit summaries
again same bad faith accusations
- Comments
I suspect these are all the same person or are meatpuppets.
This person is not a "sockpuppet", there are merely a lot of people who are tired of Neon's heavy handed approach to several wiki pages along with his bad faith assumptions and threats. See his own page for more on this. Any staff checking the IPs or any other hard evidence will see this.(98.212.132.208 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
- I have made no such threats or assumptions of bad faith. Above user has been warned about not assuming good faith and vandalising the article. --neonwhite user page talk 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- based on the IPs, the anon IPs belong to two users, I am not in the US, but it seems they are from 2 states that are not close to eachother. However seeing as I obviously don't have access to checkuser I have no idea if either of those IPs match the IP of the registered account. The edit summaries of one of the IPs seems to match the edit summaries of the registered user. The rest of the IPs have not made enough edit summaries for me to come to a conclusion.
- Neon, you should do a request for checkuser, however I can't see them coming up with anything, as I would guess it is not a static IP address.
- One further comment, although sock puppetry is not acceptable in wikipedia, I would have to agree with the comments stating that you are a little eager to hand out vandalism warnings, I know you are not trying to troll users, but vandalism should only be stated for blatant acts of vandalism, not for content disputes. Try a revert with a clear summary, and then a message explaining why their edit is not acceptable. From my own personal experience with you, I can tell you that our constant revert cycle was not productive, the vandalism warnings you gave me just pissed me off and made me less eager to reach a compromise, however as soon as we hit the talk page, I felt much more confident about resolving our content dispute. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am pretty convinced that this is either the same person with a dynamic IP or several people working as a team which i believe is dealt with in the same way. There is a certain point where it becomes obvious that these edits are not being done to improve the article but to damage it by maintaining specualtive unsourced information which should always be removed from a bio article. I don't really consider this a content dispute as most of the edits are pretty minor 'clean up' issues like capitalising The Wallflowers (hardly a controversial edit that needs intense discussion) and it is not being discussed so it can't really be a 'dispute' per se. I think the issue is with ownership but it is unclear whether it is multiple or a single person. Regardless i have asked for a third opinion and hopefully they will ok the edits and deal with the ips that refuse to discuss the article properly. User talk:98.212.132.208 has only been warned about not assuming good faith. The first edit on the contribution page was to remove a comment I made on the talk page the second was a personal attack so i think the warning about assuming good faith was valid in this case. --neonwhite user page talk 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions