User talk:Arimareiji
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Actismel
[edit]It was being dealt with even as I posted the note. That is a sock puppet of a account called User:ColScott who has been a huge disruption on Wikipedia for years. He's a minor Hollywood co-producer who runs his own message board webpage and is obsessed with Charles Manson ("who doesn't belong in jail because he didn't kill anyone.") He also takes great personal pleasure in getting the people who post to his message board to hunt and expose people who edit here, and tried to out me once. I spotted him earlier today because I keep some of the Manson family pages watchlisted and saw him post and tagged his page as a sock. I called him out so he followed my posts to stir up trouble on the AN/I board. Thankfully, I didn't have to do a sock report or file a checkuser. He's a nuisance. He didn't get my state right, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did notice that you seemed to realize there was something amiss with that editor and when I flatly made some comments about the sock thing, the account was suddenly gone, which pretty much confirmed it with me. I do believe the intent was to stir things up, and it was successful. I've had quite a bit of activity in the realm of sock puppets, which is why I was upset when I thought you were saying Victor and I were. I am making an effort to try and calm things down behind the scenes, through email, and he has calmed down somewhat in the last couple days. No offense meant whatsoever, but it seems to me like both of you want to have the last word. And I honestly did try to calm things down on the page when it all started. Well, even before you came to the talk page, when I was telling both he and Jwy that reverting each other wasn't the way to settle a dispute. I know Victor can be trying, but he can actually be a good editor when someone takes him by the hand and explains how things are supposed to happen. The majority of the article was written by him and another editor, and overall, it's not too bad. I should have said something about that section when it was written, but I was having such bad headaches at the time that I didn't have the will to work on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I've learned from here is that there are simply times when things aren't a coincidence. That the editor knew, only a week after creating the account, and only a very few handsful of edits, how to have the user pages deleted. To me that indicates someone who has been here before. And that the same person went straight to the Lavergne and Whitman articles seems suspicious to me. With the involvement with sock cases that I've had, that's rarely a coincidence. Once in a blue moon it isn't. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've used WP:DUCK in a really persistent sock case more than once. But she still comes back. My watchlist WP section is full of checkuser/sock cases for this one person who just doesn't know when to give up. The thing about socks that I've noticed is that despite the fact they've been outed before doesn't stop them from returning, time and again, to the same articles. A great deal of the time, the articles would essentially qualify as obscure. One that the sock puppet I am referring to kept going back to Richard Calvin Cox and making the same edits, and on others actually go back into the history to restore the same odd edits that she had put in months before. That the person who stalked Victor did the same sort of thing made it suspicious to me. Actually, I'm glad, if this is the situation, that the person gave up so easily, sock cases give me headaches. I also will assume good faith, but only up to the point where it is being flung back in my face, which is something I was just dealing with today. It was so blatant today that even an only tangentially involved admin picked up on it immediately. It wouldn't be so bad, except that once it is a sock thing, it's rarely congenial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely positive that the majority of it is under the radar. Sometimes people make errors and come back - kind of like Victor did when he lost the password to the first account he had and no longer had the same email address to retrieve it. The problem with socks is that once it has escalated to the point that someone realizes it, they've become a problem. I used to work with an editor here on sock cases, and he was really good at it. He had all sorts of ways to track IPs and kept extensive records on trends with questionable edits. This is a time when a good editor makes a bad mistake. He got so frustrated with a persistent, problematic sock that he ended up making a second account of his own, trying to set the sock up to expose him. In the process, he got banned for being a sock as well. That was a loss and it was only from his frustration. The thing about the sock who posted on the AN/I is that it was lucky that those that were watching were familiar with him, and not a newer admin. A new admin would have wanted a sock case filed, or a checkuser request made, and those are just horrible pains to do. Fortunately, most admins who work AN/I and sock know the name ColScott. By the way, that's a name taken from Charles Manson as well. On Manson's birth certificate, his father's name was given as Col. Scott. Obsession. It's not just an expensive perfume for women. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The guy just uses the name, I'm fairly certain no one succeeded in tracking who the original Col. Scott was, and has to have died by now - Manson was born in 1934. I'm not even certain that he was really Manson's father. The guy who used that username is named Don Murphy, and he was also editing his own article tonight. That's a fairly big no-no, and he was posting how he hates Wikipedia on there tonight and included his message board address. His biggest claim to fame is that he was one of the co-producers of Pulp Fiction and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, although he's not a major player in the film world. There are a lot of schlepps out there. But is is creepy knowing you're on the bad side of someone who has no compunction with giving out someone's personal information if he finds it. I'm just glad he got my state wrong on the AN/I board. Otherwise, I'd be more upset. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely positive that the majority of it is under the radar. Sometimes people make errors and come back - kind of like Victor did when he lost the password to the first account he had and no longer had the same email address to retrieve it. The problem with socks is that once it has escalated to the point that someone realizes it, they've become a problem. I used to work with an editor here on sock cases, and he was really good at it. He had all sorts of ways to track IPs and kept extensive records on trends with questionable edits. This is a time when a good editor makes a bad mistake. He got so frustrated with a persistent, problematic sock that he ended up making a second account of his own, trying to set the sock up to expose him. In the process, he got banned for being a sock as well. That was a loss and it was only from his frustration. The thing about the sock who posted on the AN/I is that it was lucky that those that were watching were familiar with him, and not a newer admin. A new admin would have wanted a sock case filed, or a checkuser request made, and those are just horrible pains to do. Fortunately, most admins who work AN/I and sock know the name ColScott. By the way, that's a name taken from Charles Manson as well. On Manson's birth certificate, his father's name was given as Col. Scott. Obsession. It's not just an expensive perfume for women. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've used WP:DUCK in a really persistent sock case more than once. But she still comes back. My watchlist WP section is full of checkuser/sock cases for this one person who just doesn't know when to give up. The thing about socks that I've noticed is that despite the fact they've been outed before doesn't stop them from returning, time and again, to the same articles. A great deal of the time, the articles would essentially qualify as obscure. One that the sock puppet I am referring to kept going back to Richard Calvin Cox and making the same edits, and on others actually go back into the history to restore the same odd edits that she had put in months before. That the person who stalked Victor did the same sort of thing made it suspicious to me. Actually, I'm glad, if this is the situation, that the person gave up so easily, sock cases give me headaches. I also will assume good faith, but only up to the point where it is being flung back in my face, which is something I was just dealing with today. It was so blatant today that even an only tangentially involved admin picked up on it immediately. It wouldn't be so bad, except that once it is a sock thing, it's rarely congenial. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- What I've learned from here is that there are simply times when things aren't a coincidence. That the editor knew, only a week after creating the account, and only a very few handsful of edits, how to have the user pages deleted. To me that indicates someone who has been here before. And that the same person went straight to the Lavergne and Whitman articles seems suspicious to me. With the involvement with sock cases that I've had, that's rarely a coincidence. Once in a blue moon it isn't. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Whitman
[edit]The sarcasm (at least as I see it) of your recent edits (starting here seem to fan flames that had apparently cooled down considerably. In my forced analogy of a while ago, unnecessary spice in the stew. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, taken in the context that you appear to disagree with them, it seemed such to me. I'll leave it at that. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- (taps sarcasm meter. This thing working? Oh, its just pegged.) Thanks for the good wishes. I think further discussion of the topic might have proved useful. You'll notice encouraging evidence of a greater understanding of OR and SYN on my talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Circled R
[edit]In Talk:Drudge Report one editor is insisting that it can not be a trademark because it is not in the "official list" -- even though the "official list" states it may be missing material. Also, doesn't use of "circled R" imply a claim to a trademark in the first place? I fear he is digging in his heels on this. Collect (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
RfC Collect
[edit]Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Drudge Report (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
[edit]Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)