| Revision as of 14:46, 27 August 2008 editArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits →meat puppetry accusation: cm← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:10, 27 August 2008 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,326 edits →meat puppetry accusation: Not reasonable, John.Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| :::Respectfully, it isn't really about an edit occurring elsewhere, John. DG is under rather specific ArbCom restrictions that are supposed to curb his behavior in regards to incivility () and editing from anon accounts {). In the JTR-related discussion, he used an anonymous account (previously identified as being in his IP range) to make a personal attack () that anon IP edit was not refactored to reflect that it came from a signed-in DreamGuy, as doing so would put him in blatant violation of his parole, and he would be blocked without hesitation. His last block, less than a week ago, was for 96 hours. Coupled with the attack post he placed on the anon's usertalk page suggests that the ArbCom restrictions hold little promise in rehabilitating the way in which DG interacts with others. | :::Respectfully, it isn't really about an edit occurring elsewhere, John. DG is under rather specific ArbCom restrictions that are supposed to curb his behavior in regards to incivility () and editing from anon accounts {). In the JTR-related discussion, he used an anonymous account (previously identified as being in his IP range) to make a personal attack () that anon IP edit was not refactored to reflect that it came from a signed-in DreamGuy, as doing so would put him in blatant violation of his parole, and he would be blocked without hesitation. His last block, less than a week ago, was for 96 hours. Coupled with the attack post he placed on the anon's usertalk page suggests that the ArbCom restrictions hold little promise in rehabilitating the way in which DG interacts with others. | ||
| :::Thought you would prefer a better picture of the issue. - ] ] 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | :::Thought you would prefer a better picture of the issue. - ] ] 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::(The above seems to be a mix of two different issues, but I'm only writing to John—the other thing is too complicated for me atm—I'll just say that if DreamGuy has been changing Arcayne's posts, then A has every right to be angry.) John, I don't think it's reasonable to warn DreamGuy for what he wrote about ], and peremptorily tell him to apologize. (Do we ever order people to apologize? That has to be within the personal purview of every user, IMO.) Fat Cigar is is an ] sockpuppet that exists for the sole purpose of aggressively "voting" in favor of Elonka—so far, at , her , her RFC , , etc: and for teasing and annoying her critics, and generally stirring things up wrt Elonka. As luck would have it, I was just typing up a comment to that effect, to be posted below Fat Cigar's "vote" at ]. It would have been worded rather more sharply than DreamGuy's, and I may yet post it.. though now perhaps it's not needed. And I wouldn't use the word "meatpuppet"; I have no wish to accuse Elonka of suborning this editor. On the other hand, DreamGuy, in using the word, is referring to what he has seen written about FC—on Elonka's talk, I think it was (I'm pretty sure I've seen it, too.) FC is new; has too much Misplaced Pages competence for a newbie; is an inflammatory SPA: so it's a sock. Now warn me per ] if you wish. But perhaps you'd like to look at Fat Cigar's contributions first. ] | ] 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 19:10, 27 August 2008
I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.
If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain admins who seem more interested in breaking policies than enforcing them.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.
Please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy "new section" tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).
Meiling Melançon
Hi DreamGuy - Just FYI: I saw your request for editor input on the external links talk page and responded at the article. -- SiobhanHansa 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg
Aha -- thanks for your brief message. On the basis of your explanation, I now appreciate that my reasoning was mistaken in uploading this specific image. I don't know how to delete an image, but the bottom line is that your thoughtful attention to detail is at least appreciated in this case.
I am sorry to learn that I was wrong, of course: but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- May I trouble you further by asking how I go about deleting this wrongly uploaded image? --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice
Very nice. I didn't like mine, but hoped it would get someone thinking, and I much appreciate your far better wording. KillerChihuahua 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
meat puppetry accusation
Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2, you are not to make uncivil comments or accusations of bad faith. However at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team you have done that in the actual comment and the edit summary. Using language such as "known meatpuppet" is both uncivil, and terrible bad faith, unless you have already discussed this and "known" refers to a community approved deduction. Is there any such communal discussion? If not, please initiate some kind of actual discussion where others will likely tell you that your suspicions are ill-founded. Otherwise, please stop with this kind of harassment, and go and retract your comment at the MFD and apologise to both parties. John Vandenberg 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- As well, do not ever refactor my posts again. If you do so again, you will be reported to AE. Learn from your past mistakes, as I will not have the slightest hesitation to request your blocking. - Arcayne () 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is in regards to , as outlined here it is about this edit. DreamGuy, as you reverted Arcayne for a warning about that anon diff, could you please add some context here on why you thought the anon edit was good. John Vandenberg 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, it isn't really about an edit occurring elsewhere, John. DG is under rather specific ArbCom restrictions that are supposed to curb his behavior in regards to incivility (2) and editing from anon accounts {1). In the JTR-related discussion, he used an anonymous account (previously identified as being in his IP range) to make a personal attack () that anon IP edit was not refactored to reflect that it came from a signed-in DreamGuy, as doing so would put him in blatant violation of his parole, and he would be blocked without hesitation. His last block, less than a week ago, was for 96 hours. Coupled with the attack post he placed on the anon's usertalk page suggests that the ArbCom restrictions hold little promise in rehabilitating the way in which DG interacts with others.
- Thought you would prefer a better picture of the issue. - Arcayne () 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is in regards to , as outlined here it is about this edit. DreamGuy, as you reverted Arcayne for a warning about that anon diff, could you please add some context here on why you thought the anon edit was good. John Vandenberg 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- (The above seems to be a mix of two different issues, but I'm only writing to John—the other thing is too complicated for me atm—I'll just say that if DreamGuy has been changing Arcayne's posts, then A has every right to be angry.) John, I don't think it's reasonable to warn DreamGuy for what he wrote about User:Fat Cigar, and peremptorily tell him to apologize. (Do we ever order people to apologize? That has to be within the personal purview of every user, IMO.) Fat Cigar is is an SPA sockpuppet that exists for the sole purpose of aggressively "voting" in favor of Elonka—so far, at her recall petition, her essay, her RFC , , etc: and for teasing and annoying her critics, and generally stirring things up wrt Elonka. As luck would have it, I was just typing up a comment to that effect, to be posted below Fat Cigar's "vote" at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team. It would have been worded rather more sharply than DreamGuy's, and I may yet post it.. though now perhaps it's not needed. And I wouldn't use the word "meatpuppet"; I have no wish to accuse Elonka of suborning this editor. On the other hand, DreamGuy, in using the word, is referring to what he has seen written about FC—on Elonka's talk, I think it was (I'm pretty sure I've seen it, too.) FC is new; has too much Misplaced Pages competence for a newbie; is an inflammatory SPA: so it's a sock. Now warn me per WP:AGF if you wish. But perhaps you'd like to look at Fat Cigar's contributions first. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC).