- Multiple pages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)
TheJack15 appears to be a confirmed sockpuppet and has already been blocked on commons.
Both SMcCandlish and I have brought up concern over move closures on their talk page, User talk:TheJack15.
There is an active SP case. This editor has made multiple controversial closures. Additional disruptive behavior is listed on the SP case. This review is to determine consensus on overturning all of the closures, and having them re-evaluated by experienced editors, and then making the appropriate moves as necessary.
Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert all and block this account – An account that has existed for only 6 days shouldn't be doing these potentially controversial closes in any case. Some are clearly premature. It's not clear what his game is, but it doesn't look sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. I'm sorry to say I didn't follow up on the closer in one of the multi-move RMs. All the articles have now been moved, so it would be good to have an experienced admin take a look at the situation and re-close as they see fit.--Cúchullain t/c 04:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all bullshit. I have spent a lot of my time reading over the closing instructions for requested moves. I have reopened a request after someone left the message on my talk page. I followed the instructions given to me by the admin who told me to revert the moves, and I don't think this meets the definition of "disruptive behavior". Aside from what you have accused me of, I have made many useful contributions that have highly benefitted Wikipedia. I have also made many useful contribs to Requested Moves. If you would like me to stop contributing to Requested Moves I will, but I don't think it is necessary to open a move review on me, because my contributions to requested moves are all in good faith. I apologize if I have disrupted Wikipedia in any way and that is why I will no longer assist at the Requested Moves page. TheJack15 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm honestly not sure where to begin with regarding your statement regarding "useful contributions" -- of the 260 edits you have so far you have: violated copyright, violated sock puppetry rules, improperly closed moves, deleted AfD notices, and reported IP editors for vandalism who you haven't had any involvement with. Regarding "reading the closing instructions" clearly you are not reading them close enough, you haven't left edit summaries, improperly closing the discussion leaving bits of the rm template in place and involving yourself in contentious discussions without and established foundation in understanding the policies of Wikipedia regarding article title. I apologize if you feel like you are being dealt with harshly however a lot of evidence points to the fact that you are a distributive editor who has already been blocked before. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me which moves should be reverted? And I will revert them ASAP. TheJack15 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I would say do nothing to those you have closed, as well as don't close any more move requests. Let's have an admin take a look over each one individually and make the correct closure. To have you revert now after the pages have already been moved may create a bigger mess. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and simply reverted the close at Talk:An Post-Chain Reaction, as it could take months for this MRV to get acted on, if history is any guide. If an admin objects, I'm happy to have him fix it some other way. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly I reverted at Talk:Mihrişah Valide Sultan for same reason. Let some discussion happen before closing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I would agree, lets revert any closes that did not result in a MOVE, and reopen them for discussion. And then leave those pages with moves for further discussion and action. Not much implication in reopening discussions. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left Talk:History of the Scots language as it was unanimously opposed; and reverted at Talk:Leonardo da Silva Moura that you had just relisted before he closed it. Talk:Archives Service Center, University Library System, University of Pittsburgh was relisted 9 days ago and still has no useful input; probably it should be started over after some consideration. I reverted at Talk:Circumpolar peoples. Talk:Silent Intifada still had no support after 9 days relisting, so I'll let that go. Jeeze, he did a lot of these. I'll keep looking, and listening for any push-back. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Going back, a lot of them probably won't upset anyone, so I left them (if anyone is upset, they can revert); I reverted at Talk:Interstate 164 which looked like it could use more discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also doing likewise, will post a log here in a bit. Any experienced editor is welcome to object to the reverts or changed being made to cleanup this mess. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn all that are questionable. This not-really-new but also not-experienced-enough editor is clearly not competent to close RMs, and is doing them incorrectly and seemingly capriciously. I've addressed the particular case of this closure at Talk:An Post-Chain Reaction, in a commented-out subsection below. Should this multi-close review be rejected for some procedural reason (I haven't seen an admin chime in yet), please uncomment the An Post-Chain Reaction MR, which I wish to be considered severably as an active MR of its own in such an event. (I'm too swamped with other stuff to watch this page like a hawk. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
