User talk:Worldedixor: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Content deleted Content added
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==November 2014== Worldedixor, do you realize that you have edited PBS's page ''45 times'' in a space of ''six hours''? (Posting your so often stated "I am out of here" as early as the second of the 45 edits — perhaps your password was hacked and somebody else did the other 43?) And yet you state in (approximately) the tenth that "I have shown a lot of restraint today". If nothing else, I presume you realize each of those edits gives the user an alert? Line 141 ⟶ 139: In the RfC/U you were accused of: "'''Article talk page abuses'''" {{collapse top|title=This section contains an extensive (1650 word but I think relevant) text related both to the clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases. The second part was not planned and, while I do not want to detract from relevant areas of cited wrongdoing, I also think it relevant to notify reviewers and interested parties of questionable content within.<br />My conjecture is that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement and that, in totality, many of the interventions presented within do not demonstrate best practice in relation to Wikipedia's policies regarding [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In addition to statements within that I think were misrepresentative I further question the selective use of [[WP:EXT|external]] type links that focus on individual edits while no direct reference to context is provided. Other links in the RfC/U, if followed through to get to the actual edits, I believe demonstrate provocative comment particularly by [[User:Technophant|Technophant]], the primary author of the RfC/U. I further propose that the related talk page discussion of the RfC/U [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Worldedixor#Questions_to_Certifying_users_from_Worldedixor|ended]] in a way which I consider indicative of the characteristic unaccountability and evasiveness of the primary author.<br />I lastly propose that any later remarks by Worldedixor, while not being excused, should be rightly considered within the context here mentioned.<br />[[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)}} ''I will add comment in italics but it is up to you to indicate why these may no longer apply or what you will do to counteract any tendency. <small>(I would further encourage independent contributors to add further comment to my comments as relevant)</small>'' :1 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#Competence Matters]] Polite request, rude response, civility Line 182 ⟶ 180: Well there goes. I certainly think that there are things you still need to take on board here and I hope that you take points as relevant to heart. Please take special reference to what I said about "may". If I thought the situation had been more severe then at this point there is more advice that I would give but will leave any content for another time. Please also consider any relevant issues from other of your inter editor interactions. Various editors have presented a variety of perspectives about you and, while I hope that they are primarily reacting to first hand reference, there is a general set of themes presented. Have another look at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor]]. Forget about Technophant's absence of accountability at the end of the page. Focus on the earlier points mentioned. There are legitimate issues here and people here need to know about your accountability. I also hope that other editors can take an unbiased look at the information presented in their development of views related to the content. I think that much of it speaks for itself. ::In relation to the above content, if editors have any points, or areas of guidance for me that may not be helpful to raise on this page, my talk page is also available. [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ::The collapse of above content, as originally proposed by [[User:PBS|PBS]], obviously widens options for comment. ::Editors should make direct contact with [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] who is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&oldid=633413003#Blocked_again blocked.] [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ==SPI== You have been reported to [[WP:SPI]] on suspicion of sock-puppeting. The link to the SPI case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Worldedixor here]. Please note that you have the right to defend yourself in the section at the end, "Comments by other users". ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) :Please note that it is only a suspicion, and that the evidence is entirely circumstantial. None of the diffs in the SPI provide solid proof of the alleged sock-puppeting, but the pattern of behaviour is very familiar. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC) ::Result of SPI: inconclusive. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ==Blocked== Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) == Standard Offer unblock request for [[user:Technophant|Technophant]] == {{user5|Technophant}} Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to [[User talk:Technophant]] you may have an interest in this request. Sent by [[user:PBS]] via -- [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC) <!-- Message sent by User:PBS@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PBS/MessageList&oldid=676698900 --> ==[[Wikipedia:BLPPROD|Proposed deletion]] of [[Bernard Sauvat]]== [[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]] The article [[Bernard Sauvat]] has been [[WP:BLPPROD|proposed for deletion]] because it appears to have no references. Under [[Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting|Wikipedia policy]], this '''[[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]]''' will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a [[WP:V#Sources|reliable source]] that directly supports material in the article. If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see [[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners|Referencing for beginners]], or ask at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]]. Once you have provided at least one [[WP:V#Sources|reliable source]], you may remove the {{tl|prod blp/dated}} tag. '''Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced.''' If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can {{#ifexist:Bernard Sauvat|request that it be undeleted|[[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion|request that it be undeleted]]}} when you are ready to add one.<!-- Template:ProdwarningBLP --> [[User:TheImaCow|TheImaCow]] ([[User talk:TheImaCow|talk]]) 14:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC) | |||