User talk:DoRD

Is a user being a jerk and kicking up a huge fuss about things against any rules?

I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up. He responded by calling me a troll. So I do not think he'll respond to users calling him out on his behaviour. I'm not sure if there's a wikipedia policy handling (Personal attack removed), so I'm asking you here. :)

An example of his lovely demeanour: Talk:Fox_News_Channel --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• You own words show your error. You said "I have send user Niteshift36 a message about his behaviour that was just so horrible that I just could not resist speaking up" You cited nothing specif, just came to my page, littering it with comments like "I can't resist letting you know how disgusted I am with your attitude"[1]. That's not constructive. that is you making a personal attack. That's your personal opinion about conduct, not a discussion about a specific edit as it pertains to a policy. Then you come here and use words like "douchbaggery" and "jerk". I'm sure DoRD will be able to explain to you why you've handled this wrong from the start. On top of all of this, I haven't edited that article since Sept. Breezing into my page 3 months after the fact to express your opinion is not going to be productive either. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I did cite your comments on Talk:Fox_News_Channel both here and in my comment to you, Niteshift36. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with quoting part of my message out of context. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, your personal attack here is out of line, and I caution you against doing it again. In any case, I don't have any idea of what behavior you are referring to. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for making it sound like a personal attack. I suppose I let my emotions get the better of me. I am referring to his comments on the previously linked talk page. Here it is again for your convenience: Talk:Fox_News_Channel

If the attitude and the language he used there are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia I can accept that as an answer and I can adjust my expectations of wikipedia accordingly. I just wanted to run it by an admin to check, rather than to just assume things. I appreciate the time you're taking to clear this up. --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• What you may not realize is that the person I was in a dispute with is an admin. He's perfectly capable of handling it and navigating the system. I'm sure that if he felt action was needed 3 months ago, he knows where to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, I read about 2/3 of that talkpage ... still not sure what I'm looking for that would lead to "jerk" or "douchebaggery" suggestions. Nothing that violates WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Maybe a little WP:BATTLE going on, but unless I see a WP:DIFF that shows violations, it's simply someone passionately defending a position when backed into a bit of a corner. Oh, it was also ages ago. ES&L 19:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the interest of saving time, a number of editors participated and the material was included in a way that satisfied both sides..... 3 months ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36, thanks for repeatedly telling me it was 3 months ago. Though that really doesn't answer any of my questions plus I already knew this because conversations have dates on them. DoRD, would you say you agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves's conclusions? --2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you caught the not so subtle hint. Dragging up something that was resolved 3 months ago is usually not the norm. Many pages would have already archived that discussion. I'd also note that ES&L made a point of the issue being "ages ago" as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very nice, but I'm here to ask questions about what is acceptable behaviour or not. So what does it have to do with anything? You're responding to every last message defensively, as if you think I'm here to complain to the Head Master. Kindly stop. I'm just looking for my answers, and then I'll adjust my expectations of Wikipedia as needed and I'll move on. -2001:980:A4CB:1:C4D6:2A5D:5305:7D91 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• You've heard a couple of answers: Two admins have told you that your conduct is out of line. One of them directly said he didn't see anything wrong with what I did on that talk page. And why would I be defensive? It's not like you've engaged in personal attacks. Oh wait, you DID, more than once. Put the whip away, the horse is dead. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rude impostor

Someone pretending to be you made a few vandalistic edits (see [2]) to user talk pages. The person linked to your user page in the signature and my talk page, so a person complained to me on my talk page despite me not having made the edit. They have been blocked. I have an idea who is responsible, but it's just a hunch. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm about 99.6% certain who it was, based on the fact that you blocked some sleeper accounts of theirs a few days ago. Shocking. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that I have blocked a number of his socks in the last couple of days, I'm guessing that it's Evlekis again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) ...annnd  Confirmed, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

checking

I do not have any edit war with User talk:LordFixit but User talk:Tco03displays, the first user seems to be a newcoming in this case very relative to the second. Also, there is no particular reason for a user, but be suspicious for a likely sockpuppet to refer it for checking.--Katcheic (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic, you are welcome to submit a sockpuppetry case, of course, but I can tell you that there is not enough evidence to make a convincing case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't quite the suspicion? Could they please run a checkuser so I can use it as evidence? --Katcheic (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, and as it says here, that section of the page can only be used for a "situation that does not involve sock puppetry". If you wish to go forward with a sockpuppetry case, you must follow the instructions at the top of WP:SPI. It is against checkuser policy to run a check without proper evidence, so no CU will run a check to provide evidence for you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ιn any case, τhe edits are enough to form a suspicion.--Katcheic (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that the "same edit summary" they used is mostly generated by the Wikimedia software when one uses the move page command, and that their edit summaries are almost the same as the ones from you when you moved the page. I'll say it again: Just because two editors disagree with you doesn't mean that there is sockpuppetry involved. However, if you still feel like pursuing this, you must file a case as I have pointed out - you cannot use a Quick CheckUser request for suspected sockpuppetry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Kim Hyun-jung (singer)

• Longkhj (talk · contribs)
• 나는우리 (talk · contribs)
• Wild1004 (talk · contribs)

I've listed the accounts from oldest to newest. The only support I have for possible sock puppetry is the SPA-like behavior in the article, the edit warring, and the fact that accounts keep popping up as the article gets more and more push-back from experienced editors. I can't act on my own because I'm WP:INVOLVED. Rather than taking it to SPI (partly laziness), I thought I'd ask your views. It's possible that they are just meat puppets or even unrelated fans, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking back in the article history, I see User:Khj0604, with the same "khj" as the first account above, but that is obviously a reference to the singer's name. As for these accounts, there is enough similarity in the behavior, so I checked and found that they are  Confirmed to be one in the same. If you want to open a case, I'll comment there as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been so busy with IP proxies that I didn't notice your response. Is it better to open a case rather than just block them? Seems to me I could block them based on the confirmation even though I'm involved. I'll do whatever you think best.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I went ahead and blocked all three. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock of Evlekis

Hello DoRD, I was wondering if 188.29.107.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) can be tagged and blocked as a possible sock of blocked sockpuppeteer Evlekis (talk · contribs), as they have similar behavioral characteristics and the IP has been making personal attacks against the clerks working on Evlekis's sockpuppet investigation page. Happy holidays, Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The range has been blocked, but dynamic IP addresses like this should not be tagged. Happy holidays to you as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

My page looks fixed this morning and thank you! Merry day after Christmas! B17 12:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)