User talk:Arcandam: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Riverdancing (talk | contribs) →Vandalism: new section |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
OK, but what's the old account? I'm not saying I doubt the reason for the block; it's just that not saying who the alleged sockmaster (or former account, in this case) is leaves them an opening to challenge the block on those grounds. When they do, those of us who review their unblock requests have to figure this out when there isn't even anything in the block log summary explaining who the other account is. If they're editing disruptively to begin with, that's not a problem. But in this case it's not obvious. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
OK, but what's the old account? I'm not saying I doubt the reason for the block; it's just that not saying who the alleged sockmaster (or former account, in this case) is leaves them an opening to challenge the block on those grounds. When they do, those of us who review their unblock requests have to figure this out when there isn't even anything in the block log summary explaining who the other account is. If they're editing disruptively to begin with, that's not a problem. But in this case it's not obvious. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Naming that account might get me in trouble, so I rather don't, especially if it isn't in a CU request. I am already working on another sockpuppet investigation at the moment and I have to go cook dinner soon. But I don't think we necessarily need to link the sockmaster and the puppet, we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that this is a sock and that this person is not here to improve the 'pedia but instead prefers edit disruptively by starting disputes and editwarring over silly stuff like a SPA tag. So for those who review unblock requests it should be an easy decision imho. [[User:Arcandam|Arcandam]] ([[User talk:Arcandam#top|talk]]) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. If we believe him he is not using an alternative account in a inappropriate way ([[WP:ILLEGIT]]) but abusing [[WP:CLEANSTART]], both are excellent reasons for an indef block... |
:Naming that account might get me in trouble, so I rather don't, especially if it isn't in a CU request. I am already working on another sockpuppet investigation at the moment and I have to go cook dinner soon. But I don't think we necessarily need to link the sockmaster and the puppet, we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that this is a sock and that this person is not here to improve the 'pedia but instead prefers edit disruptively by starting disputes and editwarring over silly stuff like a SPA tag. So for those who review unblock requests it should be an easy decision imho. [[User:Arcandam|Arcandam]] ([[User talk:Arcandam#top|talk]]) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. If we believe him he is not using an alternative account in a inappropriate way ([[WP:ILLEGIT]]) but abusing [[WP:CLEANSTART]], both are excellent reasons for an indef block... |
||
== Vandalism == |
|||
Hello, you asked why I edited the [[Chiropractor]] article because of the "vandalism" and after viewing the contributor's other edits, I saw a bit of a conflict of interest going on, including the "quack" comments in the editing which didn't seem very helpful or neutral. If you need the links, let me know and I will tryto find them again to link here. Actually, here they are but I do not know how to reference them like other people on here do.... |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=501746482 |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=503518368 |
|||
These links show the user making quack jokes, so I didn't think his editing was intended to be useful to the chiropractic article. Just a thought. [[User:Riverdancing|Riverdancing]] ([[User talk:Riverdancing|talk]]) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:39, 24 July 2012
Reflinks bug
This bug is caused by Reflinks (the latest version). "Meld je aan of registreer je om een reactie te plaatsen!" is Dutch and means "Login or register to comment". 
In progress [1] [2] Arcandam (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for the stroopwaffles! Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
Trichuris trichiura
OK, but what's the old account? I'm not saying I doubt the reason for the block; it's just that not saying who the alleged sockmaster (or former account, in this case) is leaves them an opening to challenge the block on those grounds. When they do, those of us who review their unblock requests have to figure this out when there isn't even anything in the block log summary explaining who the other account is. If they're editing disruptively to begin with, that's not a problem. But in this case it's not obvious. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Naming that account might get me in trouble, so I rather don't, especially if it isn't in a CU request. I am already working on another sockpuppet investigation at the moment and I have to go cook dinner soon. But I don't think we necessarily need to link the sockmaster and the puppet, we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that this is a sock and that this person is not here to improve the 'pedia but instead prefers edit disruptively by starting disputes and editwarring over silly stuff like a SPA tag. So for those who review unblock requests it should be an easy decision imho. Arcandam (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. If we believe him he is not using an alternative account in a inappropriate way (WP:ILLEGIT) but abusing WP:CLEANSTART, both are excellent reasons for an indef block...
Vandalism
Hello, you asked why I edited the Chiropractor article because of the "vandalism" and after viewing the contributor's other edits, I saw a bit of a conflict of interest going on, including the "quack" comments in the editing which didn't seem very helpful or neutral. If you need the links, let me know and I will tryto find them again to link here. Actually, here they are but I do not know how to reference them like other people on here do.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=501746482 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/An-Apple-A-NY-Day&oldid=503518368 These links show the user making quack jokes, so I didn't think his editing was intended to be useful to the chiropractic article. Just a thought. Riverdancing (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)