User talk:Locke Cole

Hi Locke. I'd really appreciate more of your thoughts here. Cheers! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Could use your endorsement

I just proposed a compromise on the date autoformatting issue. I think we could get an acceptable replacement system (Bill said he'd still help with that) if there weren't people constantly trying to derail the process. And I think those people would stop trying to derail the process if we let them just go ahead and delink everything (or delink the less "relevant" links, however they want to decide that, I've never really cared about that part of the argument.) As one of the other really vocal supporters of a software solution, I think the opponents will buy into its viability more (since it's giving them what they want, at least in the short term and potentially forever, if it ends up being what the community ultimately decides) if you also give it your support. Or if you don't want to support it, I'd like to have a chance to convince you :) --Sapphic (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious business

Hi, Locke. If your expressed suspicion that HWV258 is a sock of Tony is a joke, it's not a really funny one at a time of fraying tempers. Sockpuppet accusations are serious business. Regards, Bishonen | talk 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

I wouldn't worry. I'm sure Locke was just blowing off a little steam in these trying times.  HWV258  03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I now worry. Despite my proffering an olive branch (above), Locke_Cole has decided to continue his allegations here. Unless a retraction of sockpuppetry is forthcoming from Locke_Cole (I won't dare to hope for an apology), I would request that someone in a position to do so instigate the necessary action to deal with the allegations. A slur has been cast on my reputation at WP (and on Tony1's) and I would like the opportunity to clear my name please.  HWV258  21:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a joke, I've provided my (at present) basic evidence on Ryan's talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that you were actually serious. If you really do think they are sockpuppets, start a WP:SPI. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the time to perform the type of investigation needed to provide evidence of this (beyond HWV258's user talk page history and the general attitudes/behavior of Tony1 and HWV258). Also, as I indicated on Ryan's talk page, it's possible HWV258 is a meadpuppet of Tony, in which case the talk page evidence should be sufficient. As an aside, where was the SPI for UC Bill and Sapphic? It seems we don't need SPI for cases which are obvious to at least one person. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have time to provide evidence for accusations and personal attacks—not even when asked to—then fgs don't take the time to make them. Locke, I don't have any preconceived notion of you, but I wonder if you're losing perspective on the Date delinking RfAR case. I'm a little shocked by the things you say here and on Ryan's page. Here's your accusation of sockpuppetry, here's your putative evidence of sockpuppetry (including the claim that Tony1 was the only contributor to HWV258 "for the longest time"—actually during the course of three posts). Do you really want to display yourself to the arbitrators in such a light? If you don't want to see your random accusations (or, as you call them, your "basic evidence") on the Date delinking evidence page, I suggest you withdraw them. That's not an order or a threat; it's just what I'd do if I were you. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

What the... so it's fine for Ryan to make tenuous connections between UC Bill and Sapphic (with checkuser evidence providing nothing supportive), but if I point out the liklihood that HWV258 is either a sock or meatpuppet of Tony1, it's ArbCom worthy? By all means, present evidence, and by all means ArbCom, act upon it, it just gives me more reasons to stay away rather than ever return. Again, please look at his talk page history and tell me it's not at all likely that HWV258 isn't at least closely related to Tony1 (WP:MEAT). Perhaps the lesson I should take from this is that it's perfectly fine to canvass people off-wiki, get your friends involved, but it's not okay for your co-worker (Sapphic) to share similar opinions as you.. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that, given the edit history of both, we can assume that Tony and HWV258 know each other off-wiki and are not socks. As far as meatpuppets go, perhaps you should give that article another click. The way I perceive the situation is that we have two people who know each other, and have similar outlooks wiki-wise, yet they are two independent editors. As far as I can see with Sapphic and UC Bill, you must accept that, at the very least, something unusual is going on. The edits by User:Wclark xoom are odd. If UC Bill felt this way, why did he not use his regular account to make these posts and state his case? It's extremely odd that someone who works in computing exclusively edits Wikipedia during work hours. Perhaps this was genuinely just a quirk of his, but does that not seem odd to you? I think its very sad that this discussion has culminated in this way but a lack of explanation from either UC Bill or Sapphic does nothing to cast doubt upon the veracity of a sock claim. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Locke, did you know that a User:Bill Clark left Wikipedia on February 6, 2007 with this note: [1]

I am leaving Wikipedia because of the actions of User:Spamreporter1. I contend that he targetted me for harassment and acted in bad faith during our conversations over the past few days. I regrettably lost my temper and have subsequently decided that this project is simply not worth the stress that it causes. This is the second time in as many years that I have left Wikipedia, and this time I will not be coming back.

On March 2, 2007, Sapphic appears. Maybe Bill Clark did come back. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello Locke. I thought I'd have a little chat with you about the canvassing on the date linking poll. Lightmouse sent about 60 emails to people with a link to the poll in - of these 60, only 11 people voted on the poll. Only 1 or 2 of the people contacted took part in the poll after the were contacted, the other 9/10 had already commented before being emailed so the canvassing had very limited effect (although I respect the intention was there). With regards to Tony, only 1 person commented after they had been emailed and far fewer emails in total were sent. I hope that alleviates some of your concerns - whilst there was the intention to disrupt, it had very limited effect. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How did you arrive at these numbers, and how reliable do you believe them to be? I'm still troubled that more canvassing may have occurred, especially considering the odd change in responses regarding auto formatting from the last RFC (which showed majority support for some form, while this latest RFC shows a small majority of opposition). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I imagine that WP email system, just like most other of its system, would be highly traceable. Although copies are not kept, I wouldn't be surprised if the system logged the times and dates of all emails sent through it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is logged only under the checkuser function and then logs the time and date, but not target user or content. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• And what if another account were used for some of the e-mails? Perhaps from another IP? I'm sorry, but given the efforts to circumvent process here, I can no longer assume good faith that those on the other side wouldn't resort to this kind of thing. As Jimbo has been quoted as saying, "good faith is not a suicide pact"... —Locke Cole • t • c 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately that is something we cannot tell and any discussion or poll could be subject to this on-wiki. Given the fact that a lot of emails were sent from the LM's account, I think we can be fairly certain that he didn't use a different account to send more. I'm as sure as I can be that no other emails were sent around - We need to assume good faith until there's evidence to the contrary. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Ryan, but as Jimbo has said, "assume good faith is not a suicide pact". I don't know how much more misbehavior you need to have occur to realign your perception of "good faith" on the part of Tony/Lightmouse/Ohconfucius, but mine is totally gone now in anything they say. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• IP editors cannot access the email function. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I never said they could. However if another IP were used and that IP signed up for an account it could evade those using checkuser... —Locke Cole • t • c 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you just cleared up your previous ambiguity. As to your other comment, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Come on you two, yes there's been much misbehaviour on both "sides" but the situation has been reviewed and punishments have been meted out accordingly. Let's move on from this. As far as your concerns about a second account: I think that given the number of disruptive emails from his primary account Lightmouse would have to be an utter fool to engage in sockpuppet emails. Any logical (read: devious) person would send them from the unrelated account only. Furthermore, Lightmouse's attempt to sway the poll seems to have been spectacularly unsuccessful. A couple of votes here or there was not enough to change the outcome. I hope you can believe that I for one have acted in good faith throughout. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 10:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just think it's fascinating that while canvassing was ongoing, apparently the focus now is on UC Bill and Sapphic's alleged sockpuppetry; as far as I'm aware they didn't use their sockpuppets in an overly disruptive fashion (assuming the sockpuppet claim is true even, which I still strongly believe it isn't), unlike the canvassing which (despite the apparent lack of results) was still an attempt to sway the outcome in their favor by pure numbers. Yes, I have good faith in you Sillyfolkboy, but I've been much too naive through this whole ordeal. My faith in the other "side" is gone. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• There was no ambiguity. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't realise that you think the UC Bill/Sapphic sock case is false, I imagine that that is the crux of the matter for you. While much of the "proof" is behind closed (email) doors, the behaviour and reactions of those two editors leaves little doubt in my mind that they are the same disruptive user. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Locke, you need to stop those unproven accusations of sock-puppetry against Tony1 and HWV258 right now. You've been told often enough, and have provided no evidence—see [2] and [3]—on the feeble ground that you don't have time to. (Feeble because you apparently have only too much time to repeat the accusations, and to write abusive edit summaries.) Those posts of yours are personal attacks, and approaching harassment. Btw, I have had HWV CheckUsered, on his own request. Please see [4] for details. This is your last chance to avoid a block for harassment. I will block you if you make one more sock claim against either or both of those two people. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

I also said it was possible he was a meatpuppet, and that one is, IMHO, already proven by the edit history of User talk:HWV258. If it makes you get warm fuzzies, I withdraw my claim of sockpuppetry and believe him to be a meatpuppet instead. At any rate, given the way HWV258 behaves (completely supportive of Tony1 in all arguments), he might as well be a sockpuppet, to me the effects are indistinguishable. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

When you first started editing Wikipedia, what was it that pulled you in and enticed you to contribute so much time over the past four years? Surely it wasn't the prospect of adding links to dates in articles (or preventing them being removed)? A long while ago I decided that fighting over date linking was just going to frustrate me, as I see it has you. My suggestion would be to just try and forget about the situation altogether and get back to whatever it was that made you fall in love with the 'pedia. regards, –xeno ^talk 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)