User talk:UninvitedCompany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Old sections are automatically archived to User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 April. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

1 Is it too late?
2 Re Accidental? [1]
3 Your input
4 History of sockpuppet debate
5 Checkuser on Otheus
6 Brian Peppers courtesty blanking

Old talk archived 1 2 3 4 5 6

[edit] Is it too late?

Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the Sathya Sai arbitration. I have added new evidence and updated the workshop. I should have responded earlier but I was very busy with some personal issues. I request you to look at the new evidence and give me a fair trial. Thanks. [User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 26th February 2007

[edit] Re Accidental? [1]

Sorry. Yes it was an accicent. Don't know how that happened, probably an edit confilict. I will fix it if it hasn't already been. Paul August ☎ 17:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added back your "Decline" on the BabyDweezil request. Unfotunately Józef Łukaszewicz has already been removed, without the benefit of your "decline" there. Sorry again. Paul August ☎ 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input

I need yours input there. regards, --- SAndT ^{Lets Talk}

[edit] History of sockpuppet debate

G'day, I saw your one user/one account post on the sockpuppet talk page. I presume this must have been debated previously somewhere at length, in any case I wondered how exhaustively (i.e. would raising it again be futile). The reason I say this is having read the page I really can't see any reason why someone needs two accounts except in very unusual circumstances. Has your proposal ended there? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a lack of interest in the proposal. I would like to see it revived, because I believe that we waste too much time dealing with socks that we can't block because they aren't disruptive and we don't know whose socks they are. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or the disruption is borderline or the sock is used to advocate or edit in ways the "named" editor is uncomfortable doing. Thatcher131 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I thought the debate that opened on the sockpuppet talk page was a start. It seems to me to be gaining in importance now as wikipedia seems to have reached a status in the past year or so where the standard of many articles (with referencing etc.) has improved greatly giving the whole show a much more polished/professional look/credibility. As well, the Essjay scandal has spotlighted the whole thing about credentials of editors, not whether they are or are not qualified as such but how they portray themselves. Thus, in a sense, if a sockpuppet is not explicitly identified as the author as such, a case could be argued that it is fraudulent (one is in essence proposing one is two different people, which is an untruth).

Having said all that, though there have been a few wikipedia stories in the press I read I get the feeling the whole saga has gone quietly in the popular press (I work in mental health so we're used to stories of fairly distressing events highlighting the problems with mental health services in Ausstralia disappearing of the public radar fairly rapidly rather tahn governments changing much....) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser on Otheus

Greetings again,

You rejected Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Otheus on technical grounds, and Durova resubmitted the request under a different category, and I further second the request for you to perform the checkuser. The administrator who filed the request is falsely under the impression I personally attacked him and has not taken time to retract the accusation. The checkuser is an important step in regaining some level of credibility with that admin and his circle of wikifriends. I beg, please, because perform this checkuser. --Otheus 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)