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.-- brew crewer  (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?&mdash;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?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He [immediately recreated the offending article].&mdash;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.&mdash;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
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. Half  Shadow  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--Jac 16888 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. Half  Shadow  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, and this . Just enough to pass auto-confirmed--Jac 16888 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. Half  Shadow  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. &mdash;Noah 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion & removal of tags
Please see this discussion Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about a change which you introduced and I have reverted. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
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
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?

-- Ra nd or Xe <font color="#00ffcc">us . Remember to Be Bold! 06:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have the account back. Pay attention please. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
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.  T i a m u t 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  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">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?  T i a m u t 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  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">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: Also, you might want to look at the following WP:AE cases since:
 * Evidence by Number57 against Jaakobou in the ARBPIA


 * 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.  T i a m u t talk 13:12, 29 January 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
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)