User talk:Crockspot: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:35, 2 December 2007 editCrockspot (talk \| contribs)8,746 edits →User:67.135.49.177 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:54, 2 December 2007 edit undoJinxmchue (talk \| contribs)1,677 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 47:		Line 47:

	::Then don't do it. You're disrupting the project. Please take the time learn our policies while waiting for your block to expire. ] 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)		::Then don't do it. You're disrupting the project. Please take the time learn our policies while waiting for your block to expire. ] 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

			:::I know the policies and follow them. You and those like you, however, do not and you do everything you can to subvert them and game the system. Then to protect yourselves from criticism, you throw out baseless accusations which you cannot back up with evidence and get your admin buddies to block anyone who disagrees with you. ] 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:54, 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)

Your own behavior is what is disrupting the project now. After your adovcacy and enabling of Jinxmchue's sock puppeting shenanigans, you've taken up walking in his footsteps by repeating his exact edits and edit warring:

Not only are you spread the disruption caused by a chronically policy violating edit warrior, you're repeating his exact same mistakes, both behaviorally and editorially, and tossing in some bogus warnings and a fair amount of hypocrisy to boot. Please think carefully your method of contributing before resuming that line of editing. You're not helping. You're making things worse for Jinxmchue/67.135.49.177, yourself, and the project. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my rationale on the talk page for making that edit? It has nothing to do with the reiliability of the source, it has to do with the fact that the cite does not source the statement it is attached to. It is superfluous, and adds new concepts that should be worked into the article on their own. I'll call an RfC on the question, and we'll see what truly neutral editors have to say about it. I will add that I think you should have asked another admin to protect those pages for you. - Crockspot 02:35, 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)

Then don't do it. You're disrupting the project. Please take the time learn our policies while waiting for your block to expire. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the policies and follow them. You and those like you, however, do not and you do everything you can to subvert them and game the system. Then to protect yourselves from criticism, you throw out baseless accusations which you cannot back up with evidence and get your admin buddies to block anyone who disagrees with you. Jinxmchue 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)