Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 13 July 2008

Template:Werdnabot

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Socks of Prester John

In the category Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Prester John, the entries show as talk pages. Possibly the tags need to be placed on the uesr pages? Lester 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't matter as long as either the talk or the user page is tagged and there's no point tagging both as you end up doubled-up. Sarah 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

They have made a return under these IP's to do the samething again.

166.190.32.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.49.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.118.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.138.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.156.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.241.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). and no doubt there are more.Bidgee (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

and more :(

166.191.27.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.86.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.126.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.206.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No point blocking them though as they're most likely allocated randomly upon each re-connection for each user by his ISP. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

but could be added to the sock puppet page as IP's used. Though something needs to be done to stop it. I've request temp full protection for some pages. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bidgee for all that, that's great. We've range blocked 166.190.32.161/24 and 166.191.32.161/24, so hopefully that will take him out for the rest of the night. Cheers, Sarah 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.47.96.26 seems to have made edits very similar to these sock puppets. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he moved operations to a Hotel Sofitel! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Being an administrator does not mean that you can violating WP:LOP at whim or will. You are deleting my posts and my material from my filing at WP:AN/I and violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR. I suggest that you stay out of this one. Your previous involvement made my life miserable for weeks. Please accept the fact that you are not a neutral observer and please recognize that, despite being an administrator, you are subject to the same WP:LOP as every other Misplaced Pages user. This really does appear to me to be an abuse of administrative privileges, such as they are: see WP:ANOT. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything and I most certainly have not violated 3RR. When you make a report to ANi, it's out of your hands and you have no right or ability to control it. I changed the header to a more descriptive one for people scanning the page. I'm sorry but if I have comments to make then I will make them. Once again, if you're unable to deal with others then you need to stop editing Misplaced Pages until you are able. Thank you. Sarah 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add that your suggestion I've abused administrative privileges is another ludicrous allegation from you. Please show where I have used administrative tools. Please stop posting false information about other users. Thank you kindly. Sarah 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - strong claims require strong evidence. Orderinchaos 09:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to 3RR and other accusations by NYScholar

In the above section, NYScholar (talk · contribs) accuses me of committing a variety of heinous offences, including "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR". NYScholar presents no evidence in support of his allegations but I am not prepared to let this user's repeated false allegations go without a proper response in case it appears to anyone ever reviewing my pages and archives that the allegations might be true. And so I present here the diffs for the posts made to WP:ANI which resulted in NYScholar's 3RR warning to me and his bizarre and ludicrous allegation that I am somehow "violating WP:LOP at whim or will."

• Yesterday, NYScholar started an ANi section titled "User:Stuthomas4;User talk:Stuthomas4" where he makes accusations against other editors of the article The Dark Knight (film).
• Upon review, it quickly became apparent that there were two sides to this story and that NYScholar had been engaging in the same disruptive and antagonistic editing practices that numerous editors have complained about since before NYScholar was taken to Arbitration in April, 2007. Most users who read the arbitration statements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar will no doubt recognise that NYscholar's combative behaviour and disruptive hyper-editing have not changed in the 15 months since the arbitration case. After several editors had commented about NYScholar's disruptive behaviour, I felt that it was appropriate to change the section heading to something more encompassing of the fact that the ANI had developed into more than a mere complaint about Stuthomas4. And so I changed the section heading to "{{Userlinks|Stuthomas4}} and {{Userlinks|NYScholar}}" which can be seen in this diff here.
• In a stunning display of ownership, four minutes later, NYScholar removed his name from the heading and added a comment to the top of the page immediately under the section heading, stating: "That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she.". This can be seen in this diff here and the location of his comment immediately under the section header is of note.
• I did not revert NYScholar's edit but changed the section heading again to something else entirely that I thought he might find more agreeable but was also an adequate description for admins and editors scanning the contents: "Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others", all unlinked, and I placed the userlinks for both Stuthomas4 and NYScholar immediately under the section heading for the convenience of other administrators and editors who may review the situation. I also responded to NYScholar's comment which he had posted at the very top of that section, and in doing so, I did not in any way edit or delete any of his comments nor did I refactor them to follow the chronological order of that section. My edits were made in one single edit, seen here.
• These were my only edits to this section of ANI between 11:01 and NYScholar's 3RR warning on this page at 11:46 (local time).
• At 11:40 (my time), NyScholar made this post to ANI where he uses the edit summary to accuse me of deleting his comments and disrupting the order of his comments. However, as anyone can see, the post he complains about was in exactly the place he placed it himself, immediately under the section heading as was noted above in the third point.
• One minute later NYScholar edited my comment to remove my signature, his userlinks and "NYScholar and others" from the section header with the edit summary, "I am issuing a 3RR warning to Sarah et al. not to keep changing my posts" This in spite of the fact that I had not changed any of his posts, had made zero reversions and was therefore not in 3RR jeopardy. Two minutes later, Shell Kinney reverted NYScholar with the edit summary, "Reverted to revision 225134352 by Sarcasticidealist; sorry, but the thread has obviously become about you as well - please leave the information."
• Five minutes after NYScholar edited my own post, deleted my signature and edited the section heading, he came here to my talk page to give me a 3RR warning and accuse me of abusing administrative privileges (despite the fact I have never used administrative tools in relation to him), of "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR" (despite the fact that I had not) and of violating the List of Policies "at whim or will" (despite the fact he has been unable to present any diffs in support of his bizarre accusation).
• I believe it is quite clear that NYScholar's allegations are utterly baseless in this particular instance and typically baseless in general and users should carefully investigate his accusations before accepting them as factual. I was not in 3RR jeopardy, had not deleted his comments, had not used administrative tools, or done anything else he has accused me of doing. NYScholar must cease carelessly making false accusations against other editors and must present diffs as evidence when he does make accusations. His editing practices are disruptive, particularly in the area of inter-personal communication which is a mandatory aspect of a collaborative project. It is by no mere coincidence that he repeatedly ends up in exactly the same conflicts and disputes with numerous different people. Since these issues are not a one-off but rather are chronic, long term and on-going and the same disputes occur over and over with different people, I feel the community should consider implementing community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving talk pages in less than 24 hours after the last edit to the section, and a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence. I intend asking a couple of administrators to review the above and confirm NYScholar's 3RR allegation and other accusations are untrue and utterly baseless. Sarah 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to review this, and reading the edit history of the AN/I page, I believe the above is a reasonable summary of what occurred. There's certainly no evidence that Sarah "edit-warred" - the original heading was a mischaracterisation of the situation and its locus, and Sarah's efforts appear to have gone towards presenting a more neutral summary to administrators. Given the high volume of business and the low signal to noise ratio on AN/I, fixing headings is an important part of housekeeping on the page. This is both normal and encouraged, as many headings are irrelevant or vague to the matters they raise, or are troublesome in nature. I have found no evidence whatsoever that Sarah deleted NYScholar's edits. It's interesting because on 15 February 2008, NYScholar accused Sarah of the exact same thing (see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19). Due to the user's rather odd practice of immediately archiving their talk page making accountability impossible, which continues to this day and is at the focus of the dispute with Stuthomas4 (see history of User talk:NYScholar), some of it is duplicated at the end of User talk:NYScholar/Archive 18. On that page, NYScholar made repeated claims against Sarah suggesting she had "refactored" NYScholar's talk page or removed edits by the user. These were then found to be untrue. Furthermore, in editing Sarah's comment on AN/I, it appears that NYScholar violated the editing guideline relating to editing other people's comments themselves. I believe that at an absolute minimum, NYScholar should be sanctioned - in particular, with regard to archiving posts on User talk:NYScholar and from making allegations of this nature against other contributors. Orderinchaos 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I responded on my own talk page and explained again that I do not want to have to take any more time responding to the AN/I in which Sarah changed my heading. Regarding Sarah's own most recent posting above (which she had copied on my talk page, and which I have now linked to there): In turn, I would say to her and others: "Please read the civility policy and I would specifically draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility as I believe you are in breach of it on a number of points in regard to your repeated false accusations. Thank you for your consideration."

• I do not think that there are "a number of points" in which I am "in breach of it"; however, I think that there have been "a number of points" in which Sarah and others have been "in breach of it" in Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility both in the past (see my talk archive pages) and in the current AN/I.
• In relation to Sarah's reference to her saying that she did not attempt to have me blocked in February 2008 (which is what I am referring to in the AN/I in response to her there), it was she who issued the "Block warning" (User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19#Block warning which led to Hesperian blocking me (I was referring to her attempt to have me blocked, as she is doing now with her requests for blocks and/or sanctions now).
• It was Sandstein who unblocked it on the basis that it was "unwarranted" (See subsequent part of archived talk page 19).
• In relation to what Orderinchaos states above: the full record of Orderinchaos's previous comments with my responses to them and my attempts to straighten out the many misinterpretations that I perceived in Sarah's and others' statements about my editing history in a matter dating back to November 2007 is in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19 and earlier pages of my talk archive.
• As I have already stated in the current AN/I, which I initiated, in that AN/I I have no intention of "re-living" the nightmare that I went through as a result of Sarah's involvement in February 2008. I have posted the relevant links in the current AN/I, and I will not be posting any more "diffs."
• In terms of recurrent "incivilities" (as per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility) in the current AN/I in which Sarah and others are criticizing me, the record is their own words.
• It is not my further responsibility to document them. They can examine their own past and present words and see the incivilities that they use themselves.
• The matter that Sarah refers to occurred initially in November 2007, and, as I have already documented, was an inadvertent error for which I directly apologized, and it was resolved both at that time (Nov. 2007/Dec. 2007) and later again in February 2008, when she brought it up again. That Sarah has decided to dredge it up first in February 2008 and again, in the AN/I that I posted about the behavior of another user (see the AN/I) led and is leading to many further misinterpretations of the record, resulting again in further wasting of my time and the time of others.
• I have no desire to waste any more of my own time on this matter.
• The record is archived in my own archived talk pages or in the current AN/I.
• I suggest that administrators and all other users of Misplaced Pages pay closer attention to how they themselves are abiding by the policies and guidelines that they are directing me to consider. I have considered them, and, as a result, I have posted this reply here.
• As I state in my current talk page (updated due to Sarah's continuing to post there despite my requests to desist), I will not be commenting on the current AN/I matter any further.
• (Note: Because this section appeared in colors used in archive boxes, I initially thought this section of Sarah's current talk page is archived; but the section below is the same color, so I guess that is not the case. This is the section that I have linked to in my current talk page, in response to Sarah's message there. I will not reply to her any further in my current talk page or elsewhere. If there are typographical errors here, please excuse them; I am tired and going back offline.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good comment

		The Special Barnstar
		Bless your heart. Quite a few discussions could use more gentle guidance like that. Vassyana (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana! Muchly appreciated. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)