User talk:Supervisor635
Supervisor635, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Supervisor635! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
Conversation
[edit]Hello. I'd like to begin a conversation with you, in my role as an admin. Firstly, thank you for creating an account, however, it is obvious this username is intended to convey a sense of authority which does not exist around here. Under the username policy, I'd like to ask you to have this username changed as soon as reasonably possible. Secondly, your editing history is not unnoticed, and your edit warring has now resulted in the re-introduction of silly little errors along with the wholesale reversions. A selection of these errors have been laid out at Talk:General Certificate of Secondary Education. You are invited to respond. Thirdly, your apparent obsession with removing dates from these articles appears to border on obsessiveness. Many would consider asking whether there is some conflict of interest going on here, and I invite to declare any such conflict, or any wider problem with these referenced dates. While this conversation is going on, I'd like to ask you to desist from edit warring on these articles, false accusations of vandalism, and from overly aggressive notifications to other users. Ignoring this request is likely to result in an extended block and further administrative action. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Response to ZZuuzz: Hello Zzuuzz, Thank you for your post. From reading your post I know it is about the case of the two users Wumpus12 and the anonymous IP user 83.104.51.74. I had communicated with these users directly and considered the individual cases as closed. On a personal note: I would find it rather bad mannered that those users would not communicate directly (or if they would, it would be rudely) but go straight to you complaining.
Before I come to these two users, I will address your concern about my username. Let me assure you that the user name is legitimate. The system passed it through as acceptable; otherwise I wouldn't have been able to create it. Besides, I never affirmed that I am an administrator or fulfilling those functions. My username suggests that I am just overseeing individual articles, actions of individual users and thereafter maybe correcting wrong happenings and reporting them to the responsible party. I cannot (am not permitted) to elaborate more but let me assure you that this is arranged with the respective responsible party (Wikimedia).
I will address now the two individual users:
User Wumpus12: This user restored old edits from articles where the current edits where already 1 year old (if something had been wrong with the current versions, why would no-one in an entire year correct that? This question just as a side note). At first, the user would simply restore the old version. When another user would restore the current version, user Wumpus12 would engage in edit warring and post himself the kind of "aggressive" warnings towards other users which I am accused of. When politely asked to add sources to potentially new information in his edits, User Wumpus12 would cite "dead-link" sources or sources which would not mention the edit changes. In simple terms, the dates this user added could not be backed up with any valid sources since the sources were either "dead" or irrelevant/not mentioning the dates.
And this is why someone, one year ago, probably must have had created the current version, as the dates could not be backed up with relevant sources. If you look at the corresponding edit wars, you will see that several users (including me) wanted to point this to user Wumpus12 but got ignored. If you kindly observe the conversation an IP user and I had with this user, you will see that the aggressiveness started from his side.
User 83.104.51.74: With this user I also restored intact older edits because there was the same problem: There would be just too much information added which would not all be backed up with reliable sources (especially, again, the numbers, figures and dates provided)and thus other users had also reverted this user's edits previously. Also, this user would include biased and pre-judgmental material (e.g. the OECD statement in the GCSE).
If you refer to the editing history of the General Certificate of Secondary Education, you will notice that another IP user wanted to include as much of the content of user 83.104.51.74 and find a solution but that user 83.104.51.74 would simply want to impose and push through his edits. This can be again seen in the editing history of the GCSE where one IP user would add in again the OECD statement with a more objective tone plus a credible external source and, as desired by user 83.104.51.74, even include the primary source in addition to an external source. The response would be that user 83.104.51.74 would still continue to revert edits simply for the sake of imposing his own edits while patronizing other users while giving orders; quote user 83.104.51.74: "for laughs, cite the primary source as well.". For this reason I also approached this user with a warning to keep the tone a bit more polite and to stop edit warring.
I feel that I have explained my stance more than enough and in a lot more detail I feel is necessary, not only towards those two individual users I had communicated with directly but now also towards you after those users were unable to adopt and accept legitimate criticism and had to slyly complain instead. Again, as I stated towards one of the users already; I consider this case to be closed and strongly encourage we all move on and not make a mountain out of a molehill.
Certificate of Secondary Education
[edit]Hi, you've just reverted to a vandalised edit to a table I started to add a few days back, the numbers in the current version are WRONG, if you don't believe me please follow the references and compare them to original sources eg.
You've also killed a few other section I was starting to add
83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supervisor635, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
EdwardH (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Removal of dates
[edit]Edits such as this one, where you continue to remove dates relating to examination boards, for no transparent reason and with a completely false edit summary, using multiple accounts, makes it open season on all your edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)