Revision as of 00:14, 15 November 2007

Add new messages at end please

What about being an admin?

Hi IPSOS, I want to nominate you for adminship, I'm pretty sure you would be a good sysop. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators to check what are admin's roles, and let me know if it's ok for you ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go about assigning class-rating to an article?

The Kaula article is coming along (still lots of material to add) but I think it might be better than Start Class already. However, I don't know the proper procedure to have it reviewed and having its class rating reevaluated. How is it done?

I feel like I am working alone on the article. Is it a bad thing? The article might be seen as immature because most of the input is done by a single person thus lacking sufficient common acceptance. Visarga 09:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I see there was some serious disruption of the BKWSU article last night (UK time). Thank you (and Jossi) for taking the necessary steps to resolve it. Bksimonb 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucianism

Your biteish comment at the talk page surprised me. I thought you were a much nicer chap than that remark implies. Bad mood? Feel free to disagree with the IP but it's wrong to suggest they cannot contribute without an account. And at least they were discussing a proposed change. --Dweller 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BKWSU page

re BKWSU page

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. --AWachowski 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS. You may be interested in this. Regards Bksimonb 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IPSOS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I was blocked. This is my first and only Wikipedia account. Where is the evidence, report, or justification for this block? I can't find any. IPSOS (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were provided with a link above. Note that meatpuppetry is also a violation of WP:SOCK. — Yamla 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

According to the block record, the reason given is "Abusing sock puppet accounts: Ekajati/999" I have contacted the blocking admin for you. SGGH ^speak! 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, um, I am not a "meat" puppet either. This AWachowski assumes that because I've insisted on him discussing his changes to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University on the talk page, that I am affiliated with the organization or the other editors. I am not. Also, it is and has always been my policy not to communicate with other editors by email. If you check my archives, you will find that several of those editors I've been accused of being a "meat" puppet of have asked me to email them and I've insisted on discussing only publicly on Wikipedia. What kind of kangaroo court is this? IPSOS (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to arbitration committee to review block

I hereby request that the arbitration committee review my block. In my defense I state that:

this is my only Wikipedia account
that I have no vested interest in the content of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, only that consensus is achieved for any changes.
since I have no vested interest in the article, I would be happy to agree not to edit it.
However, I have watched what appears to have been a string of sockpuppets repeatedly make essentially the same changes to the article without any sincere attempt to discuss with the other editors. These editors include: User:Green108, User:Shortskirtlonglegs, User:Faithinhumanity, User:Lwachowski, User:Nexxt 1, User:Goldenhawk 0 and User:AWachowski. All appear to be attempting to insert the same sort of material, they appear sequentially, typically with one user disappearing for a couple weeks or more, then a new editor appearing, apparently in an attempt to exploit whatever time limitations checkuser has. A common feature to all is the attempt to use the unprofessional abbreviations "BK" and "BKs" throughout the article. Another common feature is the refusal to make any serious attempt to achieve consensus with other editors despite being repeatedly asked to do so.
While I occasionally have had a few difficulties with other editors, in general I believe my edits have been reasonable and have improved Wikipedia. I have been recognized as having admin potential by User:Snowolf, whose request for permission to nominate me I declined as I have been here for less than a year, and User:Khukri, who advised me to set the edit summary flag and always leave an edit summary. I believe a number of other editors would have positive things to say about me, my edits and my interactions, and that the positive responses would completely outweigh the few negative perception of two or three (imo) problematic editors.
I have 837 pages on my watchlist. While I don't do vandalism or spam patrolling, the bulk of my edits have been vandalism or spam reversion.
I have written or made major improvements to a number of articles, listed on my talk page. I have made minor improvements to many more, and do a lot of what is apparently called Wikignoming to many articles.
After reviewing the process for unblocking and discovering that the admin who blocked me, User:Blnguyen is an arbitrator, I do not believe that any other reviewing admin is likely to unblock me and thus I request review by the full arbitration committee.

IPSOS (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 *since I have no vested interest in the article, I would be happy to agree not to edit it.
 *However, I have watched what appears to have been a string of sockpuppets repeatedly make essentially the same changes to the article without any sincere attempt to discuss with the other editors. These editors include: [[User:Green108]], [[User:Shortskirtlonglegs]], [[User:Faithinhumanity]], [[User:Lwachowski]], [[User:Nexxt 1]], [[User:Goldenhawk 0]] and [[User:AWachowski]]. All appear to be attempting to insert the same sort of material, they appear sequentially, typically with one user disappearing for a couple weeks or more, then a new editor appearing, apparently in an attempt to exploit whatever time limitations checkuser has. A common feature to all is the attempt to use the unprofessional abbreviations "BK" and "BKs" throughout the article.  Another common feature is the refusal to make any serious attempt to achieve consensus with other editors despite being repeatedly asked to do so.
-*While I occasionally have had difficulties with other editors, in general I believe my edits have been reasonable and have improved Wikipedia. I have been recognized as having admin potential by [[User:Snowolf]], whose request for permission to nominate me I declined as I have been here for less than a year, and [[User:Khukri]], who advised me to set the edit summary flag and always leave an edit summary.
+*While I occasionally have had a few difficulties with other editors, in general I believe my edits have been reasonable and have improved Wikipedia. I have been recognized as having admin potential by [[User:Snowolf]], whose request for permission to nominate me I declined as I have been here for less than a year, and [[User:Khukri]], who advised me to set the edit summary flag and always leave an edit summary. I believe a number of other editors would have positive things to say about me, my edits and my interactions, and that the positive responses would completely outweigh the few negative perception of two or three (imo) problematic editors.
 *I have 837 pages on my watchlist. While I don't do vandalism or spam patrolling, the bulk of my edits have been vandalism or spam reversion.
 *I have written or made major improvements to a number of articles, listed on my talk page. I have made minor improvements to many more, and do a lot of what is apparently called Wikignoming to many articles.

User talk:IPSOS: Difference between revisions