Misplaced Pages

User talk:Drieakko

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drieakko (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 5 September 2006 (→Kven user). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:33, 5 September 2006 by Drieakko (talk | contribs) (→Kven user)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Drieakko, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Kven user

Hi Drieakko.

I wonder, if I have encountered you before on Kven-related articles? Maybe as an anonymous user?

I am also thinking, if the best solution is not to take this matter to Arbitration, since it appears to be futile to discuss with the user known as "Kven-User" (a.k.a. user:Art Dominique, user:Digi Wiki, etc.)

I haven't been involved since the article was split, and at that time Art Dominique was blocked-- or in any case, he disappeared. But now that he is back in action again, it might be necessary to get a conclusion about this user. What do you think?

Fred-Chess 13:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I created my first and only account sometime early this year. Just one user name and no anonymous postings unless accidentally when I haven't realized to have logged myself in.
The Kvenland article should be semi-protected forever to block the nuisance of consistently appearing sock puppets. All users contributing sensible material to the article are anyway permanent creatures. Preventing the puppets from appearing on the discussion forum is naturally difficult, but I think all parties involved in the discussions are so aware of the situation already, that nobody is really bothered by Art Dominique's posts any more. --Drieakko 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input.
Your suggestion is, in my opinion, not sufficient because if all puppets are prevented, then the user will register an account (think "Art Dominique") and continue his postings.
I want to know, do you think it is rewarding to discuss this user, or should we act to block him indefinately from all Kven-related articles?
Fred-Chess 13:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
From my part, it is not needed to have any other actions than semi-protection, perhaps also for Kven and Kven language. I can cope with the situation then without problems. The only thing that annoys me are the sock puppets tampering the article several times a day. Just slowing down the vandalism a bit is needed. --Drieakko 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, all three articles have been semi-proctected. Kven had already been protected for five months: 19:13, 5 April 2006 Mikkalai protected Kven.
Fred-Chess 13:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Drieakko 16:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Drieakko, like Fred Chess I was going to propose taking this matter to Arbitration. My concern is that the multiple recent duplicate posts makes relevant discussion in the Talk:Kven impossible. Have you changed your mind after the recent days postings? Labongo 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that the problematic user in question won't be affected by the arbitration process in any way. He will keep creating new accounts and use new IPs and post his long rants. I think the fact is that we just have to live with him as long as he bothers to be around. --Drieakko 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I was hoping that the Arbitration comittee had some "big guns" they could use to block this user for a very long time.Labongo 20:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course they have!
The purpose of arbitration is that they can put an injuction, stating that a reincarnation of a user is to be immediately blocked by any admin!
Fred-Chess 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This user creates a new puppet for every occasion and abandons it immediately. That is very difficult to tackle. --Drieakko 15:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)