| Revision as of 22:07, 22 September 2007 view sourceRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →Hi Ryulong← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:23, 22 September 2007 view source KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →Hi Ryulong: I think you're barking at the wrong puppyNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ::::Ah, I see where I accidentally removed your post, apologies. Was that the Big Problem? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ::::Ah, I see where I accidentally removed your post, apologies. Was that the Big Problem? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I didn't revert anyone (as far as I know). I originally closed off the AFD/RFA-like vote, then I saw that the user had been blocked by FeloniousMonk, so I closed everything off.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | :::::I didn't revert anyone (as far as I know). I originally closed off the AFD/RFA-like vote, then I saw that the user had been blocked by FeloniousMonk, so I closed everything off.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section '''Jossi''' started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd ''unclosed'' it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed ''your'' un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open '''except''' for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:23, 22 September 2007
| Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link. |
| Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely. |
| Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page. |
| I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words. |
| I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there. |
| My local time: January 2025 10 Friday 2:58 am EST |
| Archives
|
|---|
|
When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng
RFPP
FYI: . – Steel 13:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked puppetmaster AFI-PUNK still wreaking havoc
Hello. I originally asked MastCell about this, since they are familiar with the back history behind this person (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/AFI-PUNK (3rd), although there are multiple cases involving this user under different names) and they recommended I talk to you as you are experienced in range blocking. As the title suggests, there is a puppetmaster at large who is still using multiple ips to vandalise multiple articles. I was wondering whether a range block would be effective against countering this recurring vandal; they vandalise 15-20 different articles on each IP a day and change IPs everyday, sometimes twice in one day. I'm not sure page protection would really be useful in this situation anymore (it has been implemented before to no avail) as they vandalise so many different articles. It's been like this for months and threatened to drive contributors away, who have been sick of dealing with the diatribes the person leaves at their talk pages. What sort of action would be best? Seraphim 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would need a larger set of IPs to put in an effective rangeblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ryulong
Was your edit summary here a reference to something I did? I hope I didn't screw something up on that page; I posted a new section and it somehow kept getting incorporated into the archived section above. I experimented a little and managed to extricate it. If I did something to your work in the process, many apologies. All best, --G-Dett 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it was to edits that Killer Chihuahua did.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I note you follow in your usual practice of not discussing with the editor or admin in question. KillerChihuahua 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I simply reinserted tags that I added and a comment that you had removed in the process. I do not think that it required contacting you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- You reverted FeloniousMonk, then? And what did I do to which you object strongly enough to name me here to someone else, while I am kept ignorant of your complaint against me? KillerChihuahua 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see where I accidentally removed your post, apologies. Was that the Big Problem? KillerChihuahua 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't revert anyone (as far as I know). I originally closed off the AFD/RFA-like vote, then I saw that the user had been blocked by FeloniousMonk, so I closed everything off.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I simply reinserted tags that I added and a comment that you had removed in the process. I do not think that it required contacting you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. I note you follow in your usual practice of not discussing with the editor or admin in question. KillerChihuahua 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What I saw was that you closed it, then you unclosed it, except for the section Jossi started as an attempt to make sense of the chaos which had developed, and to determine how much support there was for each of the remedies. Since you'd unclosed it except for the proposed remedies, it was an open discussion about sanctions, without anywhere for anyone to place their view on which remedy was most appropriate. That makes no sense. I completed your un-closing, or re-opening, if you will, of the thread, as I had only the three choices: Leave it in that unhappy and confused state, all open except for where people could place their view; Close it all, which I felt was inappropriate for me as the one who started it; or Finish the un-closing which you'd partially done. I chose option 3, as least disruptive and most ethical of the choices available - and I posted my rationale on the thread, in the appropriate section, so anyone who wished could discuss it with me. Later, FeloniousMonk closed it as he had been chastised previously by Banno for not closing it when he blocked Ferrylodge. You reverted his closure and re-closed with a caustic comment directed at no one in particular, changing the format of the closure. I came here to find out why you'd changed FeloniousMonk's closure and what you were talking about in your summary, and Lo and Behold, I am being specified by name as a party against whom you have a grievance, without benefit of having been informed of your grievance. So I am still wondering, what are you aggrieved with me about? And why do you complain of me, without having discussed your grievance with me? And is your complaint about the section Jossi started??? Then perhaps you'd better discuss it with him, rather than naming me to others without benefit of knowing who did what when. KillerChihuahua 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)