User:Prodego/archive/68

You made me spit my root beer

best lol of the day. No tops, Prodego. no topS.  :-) Feel free to protect the page, not thinking user will be all that productive anytime soon now that us admins have become part of his conspiracy regarding the evil-incarnate that is Israel....Keeper | 76 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. One of the best responses I've ever seen here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support That was the only way to properly review the unblock request, and you hit on it. Well done, sir. Enigma^msg 06:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan

I appreciate the effort but I think keeping it semi'd until it hits TFA (and hoping nobody notices the semi once it's up there) is the best way forward. Giggy (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My fingers are crossed. Thanks for all your help. Giggy (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PopSinger623

Where was unblocking this user discussed? And why on earth would anyone do it? He was disruptive at PopSinger623, and repeated the exact same disruption as Mparker623. Worse yet, he hasn't shown a single sign at any time in my numerous discussions with him of having the vaguest comprehension of what he has done wrong, and he lied 4 times on unblock requests from the Mparker623 account. What justifies a fourth chance?—Kww(talk) 01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking a repetitive vandal without discussion usually isn't done. Did you discuss it with any of the blocking admins?—Kww(talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He [immediately recreated the offending article].—Kww(talk) 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I come off cranky, but this kid did the same thing last time: got on IRC and e-mail until he found an admin that would unblock, and as soon as he was unblocked, created the articles he had been blocked for again. It took a few hours of effort to track down the unblocking admin and get the blocks reinstalled. That's why it is normal to contact involved people (at the bare minimum, the blocking admin) so that history that isn't obvious can be shared.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan's semi prot

Looking at the article's protection log, this looks like one of these vandalism magnet article. I'd suggest keeping the indefinite semi prot after the 14th. No rush though, I'm pretty sure tomorrow will be hell as far as wheel warring over the protection is concerned. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prot

I understand your intentions, Prodego, but please do not prot my talk page. I have it unprotected for a reason. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I understand it, named accounts that pull a 4chan are to be considered sleeper accounts and permblocked. HalfShadow 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

on the subject of which, why did you reduce your own indef on this guy, User talk:Gameking660?, fairly obvious its a vandalism only account--Jac16888^Talk 04:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I brought it up; timed blocks are really supposed to be for IPs, which may or may not be static. HalfShadow 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There were some good edits in there. Prodego ^talk 04:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Look closer, the other edits were this, [1] and this [2]. Just enough to pass auto-confirmed--Jac16888^Talk 04:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to indef. Prodego ^talk 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly standard tactic: you need a certain number of edits to be able to redirect pages, so they do a bunch of small edits to get the required amount and then just put them to sleep until needed. The moment they pull a 4chan, they lose any credibility they might have hoped for. HalfShadow 04:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much know every tactic a vandal could use after 3 years of doing this. Of course, back then you didn't need edits to be autoconfirmed, but... Prodego ^talk 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird night

What is up tonight with the vandals? Definitely a little more severe than normal. Thank you very much for the blocking work. —Noah 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Wow. That's a big change. How'd this come about? Any editor not connected should be able to remove. Dlohcierekim 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion & removal of tags

Please see this discussion Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Change on removing CSD tag and hangon about a change which you introduced and I have reverted. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ACC interface

Hello. I went to log on to the ACC interface for account creation and found out that my account had been suspended. I talked to FastLizard4 about it and was informed that "The reason why you were suspended is because you were filling requests in 17 seconds, which was deemed too fast." When I got online, there weren't any other account creators online. I figured that I would just go through and check on each of the accounts to see if they were legit all at the same time and then approved/denied. This was why I filled multiple requests all at once. I now realize that was a mistake, and that I should have handled each request separately. Is there any way that I can get unsuspended? Or should I just move on to other projects?

-- RandorXeus. Remember to Be Bold! 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have the account back. Pay attention please. Prodego ^talk 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Question

Prodego, would you mind explaining how you came to involved in the discussion at Pallywood? Jaakobou often contacts people off-line and asks them to get involved at pages where his editing is meeting with resistance. Was that the case here?

And by the way, regarding your commentary there, WP:AGF does not require people to assume good faith when there is ample evidence to the contrary. Jaakobou's keen involvement in that article does seem to be aimed at promoting the term, which is, as G-Dett quite rightly points out, an ethnic slur. All the players at this page are very familiar with one another, and I'm sure that IronDuke (who has a wonderful sense of humour) doesn't mind G-Dett's commentary on his game-playing. Tiamut^talk 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of my involvement, AGF does require you to assume good faith. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't promote anything. Regardless of the intentions of Jaakobou, accusing someone of 'promoting' an ethnic slur could be contrived as a personal attack. The only evidence anyone has of what any editor thinks is based highly on their own biases. I did not see any evidence of misconduct by Jaakobou jump out at me, whereas G-Dett's comments did. If there are any concerns over any particular comment or behavior by Jaakobo, let me know and I will take a look at that as well. Prodego ^talk 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

And you didn't answer my question: Did Jaakobou ask you to come to the talk page or not? Tiamut^talk 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Again, I still don't see any. And I am aware I didn't answer your question, how is your question relevant to the conduct of these users? Prodego ^talk 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be enirely unfamiliar with Jaakobou's history, and the fact that WP:ARBPIA was opened in large part because of his actions. I urge you to review the following:

• Evidence by Number57 against Jaakobou in the ARBPIA

Also, you might want to look at the following WP:AE cases since:

• Feb. 2008: Jaakobou deleting “Palestine”
• Feb. 2008: Final warning to Jaakobou not to block-shop
• March 2008: Jaakobou mocking my mourning box
• March 2008: Jaakabou banned from I-P articles for a week for disruptive talk page conduct
• March 2008: Complaint by Pedrito against Jaakobou for editing against consensus, still trying to remove “Palestine”, etc.
• April 2008: Jaakobou complains about Eleland’s editing
• April 2008: Jaakobou complains about Eleland’s editing again
• May 2008: Pedrito complains about Jaakobou’s solicitation of other editors off-wiki
• November 2008: My last complaint about Jaakobou’s commentary and involvement on a remote page I created

I have since avoided interacting directly Jaakobou. Pallywood is a page on my watchlist that both of us use to edit. After seeing your comments there, I wondered whether you were asked by Jaakobou to monitor that page or not. That's what brought me here. I simply want a direct answer to that question. Can you please give me one? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Prodego. Thanks for your comment.--Mywood (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I merged the accounts and voted. Cheers. --Mario Žamić (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My accounts are now merged as well. Dekimasuよ! 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)