Wikipedia:Editor review/The C of E

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The C of E[edit]

The C of E (talk · contribs · count) I'm a flag adder and love helping to compile lists on stadiums The C of E (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

The since-removed personal attack is very wide of the mark, as myself and BigDunc are technically unrelated according to a checkuser. Contrary to the other claim, the only edit summary of his in the history of the page concerned is "The fact that we have such a conicedence of 2 people with the same agenda helping each other avoid the 3RR rule makes me suspicious of sock puppets", which I am sure most people will agree is not the same as "I have tryed to deal with it by discussion in the edit summery". O Fenian (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is correct. See user rights for User:Alison. At the time, she was a checkuser and she confirmed that the two users were not related in any way as O Fenian mentioned. Also for question 2, you did not fully answer it with respect to how you dealt with stress and how you will deal with it in the future. Also if you did have any problems with these users, you shouldn't just use edit summaires but write on their talks pages or request admin intervention. PopMusicBuff ^talk 11:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@PopMusicWillNeverBeLowBrow Check the contributions of this editor they do not use the talk page or edit summaries but throw wild accusations of socking and edit war. BigDunc 11:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're correct, I was just responding to what they wrote in question 2, I'm taking a look at their contributions now, and in addition to these malicious accusations, this user doesn't seem to want to follow Wikipedia policies very much. PopMusicBuff ^talk 11:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to recent RfA for this editor here BigDunc 11:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor doesn't use the talk page as can be seen on the List of European stadia by capacity article but continues to edit war to insert a defunct sectarian flag into articles using it as the flag of Northern Ireland, also you will notice on this article also fails to use edit summaries. BigDunc 11:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the userbox that this editor has in which they insist that the Ulster Banner is used as the flag of NI doesn't instill confidence that this editor will look at it's removal in any way but an attack on the flag. BigDunc 11:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. For example this edit and this edit were made after this discussion took place (without them contributing I hasten to add, and I would hope it is obvious the same discussion applies to other similar articles?). This editor's recent addition to their userpage suggested they are unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors regarding this. O Fenian (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me am, I mistaken, but isn't what I stated a simple suspicion not a personal attack. If I said "These 2 are the same person and have used sock puppets" then that would be a personal attack but what I said was "I suspect that they may have used a sock puppet to dodge a 3RR block." I was stating my suspicions and not making any kind of personal attack. The C of E (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally have removed the comment, but I do not really accept your argument. If instead of someone saying "You are a [insert attack here, say for example racist]" they say "I suspect you are a racist" it is effectively the same thing. The main issue is that you believe if two editors disagree with your edit that they may be sockpuppets. O Fenian (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But surely, just because you don't accept an arguement does that really give you the right to remove it? And no, that wasn't what made me suspicious at all, it was the fact that you had reverted twice already and then BigDunc comes along and does exactly what you did, that is what made me suspicious, not the fact that you were disagreeing The C of E (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really explain anything with your last comment. Two RVs from one user and one from another user doesn't really hold any ground for accusation of sock-puppetry. If anything you should have asked them why they did it. And if you disagreed, used the article talk page or WP:AIN. Furthermore you should accept that if two people RV your work thrice, then you should look over what was changed and see if you can change it to meet WP:POLICY or WP:MOS. PopMusicBuff ^talk 12:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually say I accused him, I just stated my suspicions The C of E (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your new statement, just be careful when compiling lists, I'm not sure what lists you mean, but make sure they follow WP:L. Don't make them too miscellanious, or unstructured, and try to use appropriate categories. PopMusicBuff ^talk 12:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
I have been mainly involved editing in football and rugby articles along with adding missing flags. I have also been working hard on stadium lists, I am particually happy with my inclusion of the closed or demolished sections in many of them
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
Yes, I have been in stressful disputes with O Fenian over Northern Ireland flags I have tryed to deal with it by discussion in the edit summery but he won't listen and claims I said little.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.