| Revision as of 10:39, 17 May 2007 editShotwell (talk | contribs)3,697 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:58, 17 May 2007 edit undoShotwell (talk | contribs)3,697 edits "Coalition"Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter? ]] ] 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | :The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter? ]] ] 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. ] 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | ::The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. ] 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == "Coalition" == | |||
| I was completely unaware of the pedophilia disputes and I think it is rather glib to describe this RfC as a "coalition". If DPeterson has prevented proponents of pedophilia from inserting their nonsense, then kudos to him. I limited the dispute statement to his behavior on the attachment therapy articles. ] 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:58, 17 May 2007
Relatively recent examples have been provided, but it is important to note that the behavior described in this RfC has been sustained since DPeterson first began editing. shotwell 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason. There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. shotwell 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
"Coalition"
I was completely unaware of the pedophilia disputes and I think it is rather glib to describe this RfC as a "coalition". If DPeterson has prevented proponents of pedophilia from inserting their nonsense, then kudos to him. I limited the dispute statement to his behavior on the attachment therapy articles. shotwell 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)