PhilKnight
WikiProject: Countering systemic bias Project members create new articles and improve neglected ones. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Review and improve |
|  |
| Article requests | ||
| Expand | ||
| Update | ||
| Edit this box |
Sockpuppetry
This is in regard to my AMA request with which you're helping. I'm sorry to post this here, but I would guess that Jaskaramdeep is watching edits to that page, and I wanted to make sure you got this message. Basically, I now know that he has engaged in sockpuppetry (one word or two?). He admitted to editing under the IP address 68.149.136.136 (read here). There, he was also warned about removing messages on Jaskaramdeep's talk page (this was before anyone realized he was Jaskaramdeep). Recently, User:68.149.157.248 and Jaskaramdeep "outvoted" me about an issue on the Jonathan Cheechoo page (Jaskaramdeep's edit summary was "2 vs 1. I believe you're outvoted, so please stop the revert war"). User:68.149.157.248 has recently been engaging in the same activity as Jaskaramdeep, like removing legitimate messages from talk pages and leaving uncivil comments. After checking the IP Info and WHOIS for User:68.149.157.248 and User:68.149.136.136, it's obvious that those two are the same person, and therefore Jaskaramdeep, User:68.149.136.136, and User:68.149.157.248 are all three the same editor. I understand that sometimes a person may forget to log in, but it's clear that Jaskaramdeep "voted" twice, by using sockpuppetry. What can be done about this? --Muéro(talk/c) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I completely agree, he is using his IP address as a sockpuppet. When he 'votes' using his sockpuppet, we should tag such comments as those of a suspected sock puppet. Addhoc 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Cannabis article in dispute
user:Chondrite is violating your request at [1]. You said Thanks, could I suggest you now leave a note on the talk page explaining that you intend to remove the tagged sentences. Then I'd suggest waiting 24 hours before removing them. Addhoc 12:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) and Yup, that sounds ok, I would comment there is nothing stopping you reintroducing information about cannabis reproduction into the cannabis article without having a strawpoll. You could just set up a new section, indicate (tag) and copy the information accross. However, I would suggest removing the totally disputed tags first. In the longer term, you could set up either a merge proposal or list for deletion.Addhoc 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC). The user has deleted the cannabis reproduction article without (1)removing dispute tags, (2)without having a strawpoll, (3)without backing up a history of the discussion on the reproduction article which contained dispute tags. There where no proposals and the user is editing the work of others which has been cited before him. I think the user is uncivil and has abused mytalk page. Since the user does not want to reach consensus then there is nothing I can do but ask that you warn the user about WP:CIV and ask him to revert the changes they made and follow your advice this time. Thanks but he is the only user disputing content that has been good for a long time. (Simonapro 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)).
- Well... Chondrite is being slightly more bold than I suggested. Regarding your other comments, I've replied on the Cannabis talk page. Addhoc 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah just wanted to contribute to what you asked on my talk page. Pleased to meet you. I am sure the article will turn out well but there is some call for it to be less specialized than what it currently is. The reproduction section is almost the size of the remainder of the article. I believe, as others believe on the cannabis article talk page, that the layman should be able to use this article as an encyclopedia and read up on references for themselves. I tend to agree. What would be your position of creating specialized pages like the reproduction page again. This fork business is not exactly a consensus or warranted given the need to apply the KISS principles :) I hope you under. Thanks again. (Simonapro 09:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC))
- Well... Chondrite is being slightly more bold than I suggested. Regarding your other comments, I've replied on the Cannabis talk page. Addhoc 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)