User talk:Dereks1x: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 31 March 2007

Welcome Hello, Dereks1x, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this welcome, and thanking you for your recent contributions. You may also like to check template:welcomeg for more advanced editing tips. --HailFire 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter the evidence I have presented in your SSP case. If you suspect other users of sockpuppetry, try starting your own case. Since I'm an administrator with over 10,000 edits over two years, however, I suspect that any such attempt would merely be seen as retaliatory disruption. But hey, I'm not stopping you. Just keep any comments you have on your own case under the "comments" section. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit the evidence I have presented in your sockpuppet case, I can assure you that another, uninvolved administrator will block you for disruption. I'm reverting your last series of edits. Confine any comments you have to the "comments" section. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that evidence is evidence. That is evidence is not just YOUR evidence and I have no right to present evidence. You, Jersyko are being aggressive and not a neutral adminstrator but an invader who is disruptive and causing trouble. My defending comments have been civil, not you.Dereks1x 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blank other user's comments in their entirety from your SSP case, as you did to Bobblehead's comment here. This could be considered vandalism. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism because I was trying to put my comments in when it jammed up so I just cut and pasted.Dereks1x 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just assume the deletion was accidental due to an edit conflict. I reverted Jersyko's reversion and manually re-added my addition. Dereks1x, in the future, if you have an edit conflict, please be careful not to delete the addition of another editor. --Bobblehead 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if it was accidental. Just be careful, please. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have used sock puppet accounts to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, that is disruptive. Telling me and other users that they are "poisoning the atmosphere" and have somehow "attacked" you by merely contributing to a SSP request makes the situation all the more suspicious. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should make you more realistic, not more suspicious. I am considering taking a less jellyfish approach to compromise. You keep attacking, maybe because as a lawyer more billable hours just means more money for yourself. Why should I compromise and accept compromise language when you are so aggressive? Compromise is better than confrontation.Dereks1x 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing where I have "attacked" you. SSP is not an "attack". My comments at John Edwards talk have focused on Wikipedia policy and content. Please provide edit diffs for these supposed "attacks", or refrain from claiming that I've done so. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up socks

To build a more convincing case that other accounts under your control are not being used disruptively, you might consider voluntarily declaring them using a user box like the one displayed here. If you choose to do this, just add this user box template at the top of the userpage:

See: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternate_accounts

This is just an idea, not an accusation. If it doesn't work for you, you'll hear no objections from me. --HailFire 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Comments such as this could be construed as canvassing. Please refrain from doing that.--Mbc³⁶² 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You supported another user (to whom you had no prior contact) in their SSP case and then basically asked them to support you in your SSP case. That is considered disruptive tactics. As it was not disruptive on a large scale, I thought it was more fitting to bring it up on your talk page rather than the page for the SSP case. I meant it as a friendly warning and apologize if it came across harshly. Concerning Tvoz, her (yes, its a she not a he) comments appear to have been directed at other users who were also already dealing with you. As far as I can tell, she was explaining her suspicions to them and asking what to do, not necessarily asking for their support. Its comments such as

"My case is under my user name (Dereks1x). I am not asking you to also write a "Comment in Support by an uninterested (uninvolved) party" but I, obviously don't have any control over you!!! :)"

that may get you into trouble. Please just keep that in mind.--Mbc³⁶² 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My what a quick response time you have! I came across your edits on the George W. Bush and John Edwards articles and looked at your contribution list. The user's name just happened to catch my eye, as did the edit summary. So in short, yes I am following you. :)--Mbc³⁶² 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol...nah I wouldn't worry about that. --Mbc³⁶² 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Snow

I don't understand your message on my talk page. I posted at Talk:Tony Snow here yesterday. I don't take inconsistent positions based on politics on Wikipedia, if that's what you're getting at. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're asking me to help out to exclude the information at Tony Snow, while you want to include the same type of information at John Edwards?? And your motivation to exclude it at Tony Snow is because the prognosis is not connected to Snow specifically; but the public awareness concerns somehow don't apply at Snow since you feel Edwards has somehow misled the public and thus we should really try to craft his article to demonstrate how dangerous the disease is while leaving Snow's without such information? Talk about blatant political motives. The fact that the prognosis isn't specifically connected to Edwards doesn't seem to concern you at all, but you indicate it's one of your primary motives for wanting to exclude the info at Snow. Say whatever the hell you want about me, at least I'm consistent in wanting to follow Wikipedia policy. Your comments on my talk page tonight, however, demonstrate that you are clearly are more interested in politics than following policy. And for that, I am no longer assuming good faith from you, as I now have evidence to the contrary. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own sockpuppeteer case

Thank you for your comments. I find it crazy that a discussion in the real world which then gets translated on to Wikipedia is some how seen as wrong. Friends point out pages to and I do the same for them and yet to share an opinion and show this on Wikipedia is seen as cheating. Once again thank you for your comments. Politicalwatchmen 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block

You no longer need to worry whether Jerseyko's vote at Akhilleus' (thus far unanimous) RFA could have any influence on an evaluation of the WP:SSP request. The case is no longer outstanding: I am closing it with a conclusion that you may read during your 48 hour block for Wikistalking and WP:POINT.[1][2][3][4] Durova^Charge! 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have reverted your latest question on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Akhilleus. Pascal.Tesson 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye folks! I am rushing to write this before the 48 hour ban takes place any second. Here's an example [5] where I was banned for asking a legitimate ethics question to a candidate for administratorship. The person who nominated this person did not like the very proper ethics question and banned me. Those two and Jersyko are friends. This appears like a group within wikipedia are in cahoots against those who favor high ethical standards. I wish this wasn't true.Dereks1x 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. Nite. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends? Hardly. It was your own excessive zeal that piqued my interest. As a Wikipedia sysop I specialize in complex investigations. This one checked out. Neither Akhilleus nor Jerseyko petitioned my attention to this SSP until Jerseyko noted at my talk page that the 48 hour block I had already declared hadn't taken effect (a system glitch gave you a brief reprieve). I still haven't had any contact about this matter with Akhilleus, who probably isn't aware of it. I judged this case entirely on its merits. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr./Ms. Dereks1x, I found out just now that I have been called a sockpuppet. I may be too in late to defend myself because Mr./Ms. Durova has already decided. I is very sorry for that you are banned for 2 days. I understand if you are unable to reply. Sincerely, H. (aka HumanThing)HumanThing 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:53, 31 March 2007 edit Durova (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 60,685 edits →‎48 hour block ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:42, 31 March 2007 edit undo HumanThing (talk \| contribs) 36 edits →‎48 hour block: sorry to hear about you. Next edit →
Line 80:		Line 80:

	::Friends? Hardly. It was your own excessive zeal that piqued my interest. As a Wikipedia sysop I specialize in complex investigations. This one checked out. Neither Akhilleus nor Jerseyko petitioned my attention to this SSP until Jerseyko noted at my talk page that the 48 hour block I had already declared hadn't taken effect (a system glitch gave you a brief reprieve). I still haven't had any contact about this matter with Akhilleus, who probably isn't aware of it. I judged this case entirely on its merits. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova\|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova\|Charge!]]''</sup> 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)		::Friends? Hardly. It was your own excessive zeal that piqued my interest. As a Wikipedia sysop I specialize in complex investigations. This one checked out. Neither Akhilleus nor Jerseyko petitioned my attention to this SSP until Jerseyko noted at my talk page that the 48 hour block I had already declared hadn't taken effect (a system glitch gave you a brief reprieve). I still haven't had any contact about this matter with Akhilleus, who probably isn't aware of it. I judged this case entirely on its merits. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova\|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova\|Charge!]]''</sup> 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

			Hi Mr./Ms. Dereks1x, I found out just now that I have been called a sockpuppet. I may be too in late to defend myself because Mr./Ms. Durova has already decided. I is very sorry for that you are banned for 2 days. I understand if you are unable to reply. Sincerely, H. (aka HumanThing)[[User:HumanThing\|HumanThing]] 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)