Wikipedia

User talk:TAnthony/Documentation

< User talk:TAnthony
Latest comment: 16 years ago by TAnthony in topic KellyAna
User:TAnthony
User:TAnthony
User_talk:TAnthony
User_talk:TAnthony
User:TAnthony/Wiki Tools
User:TAnthony/Wiki Tools
User:TAnthony/sandbox
User:TAnthony/sandbox
User:TAnthony/Workspace
User:TAnthony/Workspace
User:TAnthony/Draft A
User:TAnthony/Draft A
User:TAnthony/Draft B
User:TAnthony/Draft B
User:TAnthony/Potential
User:TAnthony/Potential
User:TAnthony/Article research
User:TAnthony/Article research
User:TAnthony/Dune Workspace
User:TAnthony/Dune Workspace
User:TAnthony/Soaps Workspace
User:TAnthony/Soaps Workspace
User Page
Talk
Wiki Tools
Sandbox
Workspace
Draft A
Draft B
Potential
Research
Dune
Soaps

Montaj13

edit

Roak

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leslie Roak (8/14/09)

  Confirmed by CheckUser that Leslie Roak is:

Canto2009

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Passions and DirecTV edits, the following covered in part in 1st sockpuppet investigation:

Initially, editor repeatedly removed DirecTV from lead pgh of all Passions character articles en masse and added repeated instances of "NBC Soap Opera" (link and incorrect capitalization included) in an effort to assert series ownership, as well other overlinking and redundancies. Edits were repeatedly reverted, and IPs warned.

Same editor has begun adding excessive phrasing related to "NBC making the final season of the Passions available for viewing exclusively on DirecTV's The 101 Network" and "NBC never released them onto it's [sic] own network or anywhere else for viewing in the United States." Related articles already have adequate explanation on the situation, by for example, editor insists on an extended discussion of Passions' distribution within the Days of our Lives article. Again, editor will not engage in discussion on the topic. Articles involved: NBC, NBC Daytime, List of shows previously aired by NBC‎, Today (NBC program), and Days of our Lives.

IPs used (City College of NY)
IPs used (New York City Technical College)
Same editor

Comcast editor with similar overlinking habits began changing "NBC/DirecTV" to "NBC-DirecTV" and added irrelevant citations and uncivil hidden comments to ward off reverts. This editor also pasted large amounts of material from other websites into various character articles.

IPs used (Comcast, NJ)

This edit (adding "NBC-DirecTV") by 134.74.74.48 (talk) indicates that all of the IPs here are indeed the same editor, seemingly editing from school and at home.

KellyAna

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click on show to view the contents of this section
DRAFT
Comment about recent events

KellyAna, I do want to calmly clear the air with you on a few things. I admit I have been somewhat frustrated with some of your edits and comments lately, but I of course apologize for anything which may be construed as a personal attack. And though I have indeed been watching your talk page and looking in on your contributions (as anyone has a right to do), I have only "interfered" in soap article-related matters. I have had Sami Brady and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on my watchlist for awhile, and I started watching TheRhani's talk page before you even commented there (I had left my own comment there previously, after she made her first Sami Brady edits). I'm sorry if you feel "followed," I assure you that is not the case.

My main issue with your edits and behavior lately is what I perceive as you making repeated controversial edits and reverts without discussion and using false and misleading statements to support them (An example:"Soap articles are done this way"). You then seem to dismiss and ignore any and all discussion or criticism of these edits, including citations of policies and guidelines that challenge your edits. This is inappropriate. I don't believe you are purposely misleading; you obviously feel strongly about your practices, but I feel that some of them are incorrect and yet you will not consider this possibility. As I've said elsewhere, my concern is for the articles I believe you are impacting negatively, and also that other impressionable editors may see your edits and practices and mimic them. You yourself sometimes note that you're doing things how you've seen them done in other articles. As an experienced editor, you may be influential to others, and I am uncomfortable with your perpetuating some of these "questionable" practices by advising and admonishing editors when they contradict you or make edits with which you disagree.

I admit that I am guilty of this myself at times, but I feel that you often have an unnecessarily defensive, hostile and combative tone in your edit summaries and comments. I understand the frustration that comes with the constant senseless and incorrect edits to soap articles by IP users, etc. because I go through the same thing, so I do not wish to scold you but rather ask you to take more care in this area, as I will for myself.

I watch a lot of articles and user talk pages. I of course will never fully stop editing and commenting where I feel it is appropriate, but I regularly ignore plenty of edits I disagree with and discussions I could be useful in. You and I are a lot alike in that we are both very opinionated and strong-willed, and it appears very easy for us to goad each other into inappropriate and counterproductive behavior. Despite my dedication to the Project in general, I have little personal interest in the Days of our Lives articles, and will probably now ignore them and let you do whatever you want. I do ask that you try in the future to thoughtfully consider the good faith criticisms of other editors, and respect their opinions enough to sometimes just accept their changes to your work or leave their own edits alone — even if you disagree somewhat. You may also reconsider the way you maintain your talk page, as dismissing/deleting validd comments without acknowledgment can be considered uncivil. I also ask that you take more care with your justifications, and provide links to actual guidelines or precedents when you are asserting questionable practices or those likely to be challenged.

DRAFT
Kind warning===

KellyAna, you and I have butted heads lately, but I am posting the following comment on your talk page to calmly address some concerns I have. Please take the time to read and consider it in its entirely, and please do not take offense. I am trying to be constructive.

As I have said before, I appreciate your vigilance in monitoring articles and enforcing policies and guidelines. However, I feel that you are sometimes misinformed about the "rules" and are unyielding even when challenged with citations.

  1. You continue to revert good faith edits by claiming consensus on the part of WP:SOAPS or a phantom "we," and yet not only do the practices you defend actually violate policies and guidelines, but the Project has no related guideline which supports your assertions. When other editors point out these violations and cite policy, you are dismissive and ignore them.
  2. You tend to be hostile and bite newbies. Even other editors have noted you to be repeatedly "hostile and argumentative"
  3. It is uncivil to delete, dismiss or belittle constructive comments on your talk page, especially using the excuse that they are "placed in wrong place on talk page" or "That's not where messages go" or "Can you not read?" This includes the removal of repeated warnings without acknowledgement. Your arbitrary "Big Orange Banner" instructions do not makesuch removals any more appropriate. This ongoing practice suggests a general disregard for the opinions of other editors, as well as your obvious refusal to accept constructive criticism based on policies and guidelines cited in these comments.
More examples: your blunt removal of a "nonsensical" comment regarding your removal policy, which actually makes perfect sense -dismissal of a valid comment with "whatever" -
  1. You are consistently defensive and hostile regarding any comments you regard as criticism, be they valid or not. This exchange you removed shows your inflammatory behavior towards an admin who was making a valid point regarding your comment deletion policy and your previous dismissals of his other valid comments. Among other things, in this exchange you scold him for his use of the word "deprecated" and he later aptly classifies you as "combative" in his last comment.

I would also like to add that I acknowledge losing my temper with you at times out of frustration, and I am by no means suggesting that I am "perfect." But I honestly feel that I have always been able to step back and do what is best for the situation, be it argue a point or "let it go,"" even if I disagree. I feel that you are always unable change your mind, no matter how tiny or unimportant the issue, or how much "evidence" may be presented against your position.

Talk:Sami Brady

Regarding using IMDb for the awards: yes, SOD's lists may be used and perhaps may be considered more "reliable." However, I take issue with your simply removing the IMDb references out of hand and replacing them with a "need refs" tag (Or removing it altogether, as you did previously). We both know it will most like go uncited for a very long time; a "weak" source is far better than none at all. If you feel this strongly about the source and the article itself, I cannot understand why you wouldn't take it upon yourself to provide the SOD source yourself — especially since you are pretty much the only one questioning IMDb's validity in general. The info about Sweeney's awards and the other quotes about the character that The Rhani added constitute the only real-world context the article has. These help assert the character's notability, and without them the article is, plain and simple, deserving of deletion per WP standards. The Project's main goal is to improve soap articles with the idea of making them "deserving to exist" and not eligible for deletion. I would argue that one of its goals is not making sure every tiny detail of every character and show is specified, as many editors seem to think. I would ask you and every other member of the Project to recognize and remember that. The only reason I even got involved in this article was because I felt as though some of your edits were jeopardizing this article as I have described, and that your justifications might influence other editors to edit along the same lines. I have only the Project and its articles in mind. — TAnthonyTalk15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Onelifefreak2007

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Block log •  IP socks

Image block

edit
  • Image violation report: [6], [7], [8] (8/19/08)
  • Block for 1 week: [9] (8/19/08)
  • Resolution: [10] (8/19/08)

IP sock

edit

Formal 3RR warning

edit

3RR block

edit
  • 3RR violation report: [11] (9/1/08)
  • Block: [12] (9/2/08)
  • Resolution: [13] (9/2/08)
  • 2nd Block: [14] (9/3/08)

Personal attack warning

edit
  • With examples: [15] (9/2/08)
  • Response by Onelifefreak2007: [16] (9/2/08)
  • Clarification of warning: [17] (9/2/08)
  • Subsequent personal attack after re-block for edit-warring, directed at blocking Admin: [18] (9/3/08)

3RR with OLTL2002

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

December 2008

edit

IP sock redux

edit

January 2009

edit

2nd IP sock

edit

3rd IP sock

edit

4th IP sock

edit

Phenomenon8980

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section

Attacks on my talk page:

edit

Blocks

edit

Sockpuppets

edit

IP sock 1

edit

IP sock 2

edit

IP sock 3

edit

IP sock 4

edit

IP sock 5

edit

IP sock 6

edit

Continued

edit

ThePhenom80

edit

"Mexican vandal"

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section

Uses random IPs to continually vandalize Carrington family, Dynasty (1981 TV series) and now Courtney by replacing all instances of "American" with "Mexican," adding multiple instances of the Mexican flag image, and related disruptive edits, as well as inappropriate slurs and personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages of those who revert his/her edits. Vandal also disrupts talk pages immediately after being blocked.

Contributions and block history:

edit

John McBain edits

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section

IP editor adds character criticism attributed to message boards/forums to John McBain (One Life to Live) and resorts to personal attacks when challenged and blocked.

Yrgh conflict

edit

Archived Yrgh conflict

IP nuisances and vandals

edit
Click on show to view the contents of this section
Various IPs of OLTL vandal
The Listmaker

Cebr1979

edit
Block log
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cebr1979 and Archive (April 2016)

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

AffeL

edit
A serious matter

AffeL, you continue to a lot of great work updating and improving many articles, in particular those for Game of Thrones. Though we have butted heads at times, and your enthusiasm has gotten you into some conflicts, I think I've seen some evolution on your part towards being less disruptive. Out of respect I wanted to ask you about a serious issue that I hope you can address.

In November 2016, an IP (who was later rightfully blocked for edit warring with you) accused you of sock puppetry in The Well-Tempered Clavier (Westworld) using the newly-created username PeterD12. I have to admit, the edit history of that article made me believe the accusation because you reverted him twice ([33][34]), then PeterD12 was created and reverted him twice ([35][36]), keeping both accounts from violating 3RR. The IP was rightfully blocked after like five reverts of his own. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that even if you had engaged in sockpuppetry, it was likely a one-off. But I made note of it.

It has just come to my attention that you and PeterD12 have voted the same way in this requested move and this merger discussion in December 2016, as well as this AfD in January 2017. These edits seem to account for half of PeterD12's 20 total edits, and PeterD12 has never actually edited any of the articles being discussed, though you of course have. It seems pretty clear to me that you created this second account as a means to circumvent 3RR and also contribute to discussions in a misleading way, which of course is forbidden (see WP:ILLEGIT).

Even though this is very serious, I'm not planning to report you or try to get you into any more trouble. These situations are in the past and I do not think they have had a significantly detrimental impact. However, I do require your assurance that you will not use PeterD12 or any other alternate account in this way in the future. Thanks.

Supporting diff timeline
Continued use of sock account PeterD12
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TAnthony/Documentation&oldid=781379322"