User talk:כתר

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have violated the three-revert rule on User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? ktr (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 I could use some help 2 Unblock 3 User:LittleTinMan 4 Unblock 2 5 Dear friends 6 Further review 6.1 As a prior step 6.2 Notes 6.3 Summary of findings 6.4 Review 6.5 Update 6.6 Unblocking 7 Please use English 8 assuming good faith 9 Greek alphabet

[edit] I could use some help

Anybody reading this knows how can I post a request to the Arbitration Committee (I've been indefinitely blocked by User:Moreschi (upon request of User:Future_Perfect_at Sunrise), reason was: Adieu; not very enlightening). ktr (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I have to agree that one word is a little terse explanation-wise for an indefinite block, and I have asked the blocking admin to provide clarification. In the meantime, I'll point out that users are, in general, perfectly entitled to remove comments from their own talk page, and apart from common politeness, there is there is no rule to say they must respond to every comment. While we're waiting, I have a few questions for you.

• Do you now understand why edit-warring in general, and violating the three revert rule in particular, are bad for Wikipedia?
• Do you undertake not to do them again in future?
• Do you control any other accounts on this Wikipedia?
• What motivates you to contribute to WIkipedia?
• What contributions do you anticipate making?

I have removed your unblock request for now. Feel free to request again if you don't hear anything in a few hours. I recommend that you answer the questions above before doing so. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you asked how to contact the arbitration committee. Your first step is what you're doing now, after that you can appeal to the unblock mailing list (see Wikipedia:Mailing lists) and then the Arbitration committee. Bovlb (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've appealed to the 'unblock mailing list' 2 days ago (didn't know I could use the 'userpage unblock' method then) and didn't get any feedback. Anyhow, here are the answers to your questions:

• Yes I do. Yet, 3 days ago I thought that doing so in an admin's talkpage, who showed such an egregious disregard and scorn towards a new user (me), wouldn't constitude edit war; I just hoped to get the attention and the intervention of another admin.
• Yes.
• No.
• My passion for truth and my genuine interest in a project such as this free encyclopedia.
• I hope I could help better articles on surgery/medicine, literature and articles on the history/culture of the Mediterranean/Middle Eastern world.

Regards, ktr (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. Do not unblock this user. He's quite obviously a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know) purely out to troll and harass Future Perfect. Bad-hand reincarnations do not get to edit. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know whose sockpuppet I am then how can I be accused as a sockpuppet (first by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and now by you)? That's truly Orwellian. ktr (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. I see your mail from Sunday night, and the lack of response.

I have reviewed your edits and those of 85.75.93.132 (that's you, right?). I find a couple of requests for and removal of references on Ancient Macedonian language that were reverted with a "sock" accusation, and talk page discussion relating to both the references and the accusation. You have certainly been leaping straight into some rather heated waters.

Moreschi: I feel like I'm missing some back-story here. Is there an entry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser that I should look at? Bovlb (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes 85.75.93.132 is me. ktr (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bovlb: Yes, there is some backstory. First sign of it was, the anon's second edit [1] was quoting an edit summary back at me which I had used days earlier in an issue with another anon IP [2]. That anon IP 66.96.249.229, revert-warring in similar style as this one, is curiously today being used by a vandal and may be an open proxy. The behavior of both IPs shows clearly that they are experienced users who know the wiki and the contributors in this field quite well. The very least I'd expect in this situation would be for this user to make a plausible disclosure what and under what names/IPs he has edited previously. (There can be no problem about privacy, since we know his IP range already anyway.) Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LittleTinMan might be relevant; the IP ranges involved overlap too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My ISP (otenet.gr) assigns my connection a dynamic IP starting with (I believe so; I don't keep a log of the IPs my ISP assigns to my connection, and I believe neither User:Future Perfect at Sunrise does) either 85.* or 79.*. This account (User:כתר) is the only account I ever had here. ktr (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you list a few characteristic anon edits from those ranges that were you? Have you ever been involved in edit-wars or other conflicts through those IPs? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in any edit-wars until 20-4-08. I used to just browse through WP articles (that's how I came to notice your action in certain Macedonia related articles), until the "get out of the shanty, you sock" incident. ktr (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LittleTinMan

Bovlb, if you're reading this I would like to ask you a favor: could you find out if User:LittleTinMan is banned? And something else: is it possible to find out the IP addresses this user used? Thanks in advance. ktr (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:LittleTinMan is not currently blocked. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LittleTinMan lists some IP addresses. Bovlb (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock 2

.

Good morning, User:MaxSem. May I ask if you have any knowledge of the case? ktr (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dear friends

User:Bovlb and User:Carcharoth (whom I didn't have the chance to converse with), I truly appreciate the loyalty you both exercise to the rules of an encyclopedia that wishes to style itself as free. I've been reading through the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and started thinking if I should insist on my innocence when, clearly, I realize that I have some really determined biased admins against me. I can't know the reason of their hostility, but I guess it would be more honourable for me to withdraw hoping that the world will be able to distinguish the senselessness and injustice of the accusations of those people and feel less reluctant to judge them in similar future incidents (which I'm sure will happen). Greetings and thanks. ktr (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: regarding that statement of yours here, don't get all worked up; nothing is over, I'm still here. You've yet to prove your accusations; of course you might believe that by shutting your eyes and ears you become invisible, invincible and the Grand Inquisitor of WP, but that's not the case. ktr (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re this; the three of them? Could it be the three musketeers hunting witches? ktr (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ktr, please stop this now. Commenting on the ANI thread from your talk page will not do you any favours. Let the discussion finish and please do not aggravate the situation any further. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok (you understand my frustration, I hope; I go through fire and water). ktr (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further review

My raising of the issues here met with some resistance at the ANI thread. I've consequently asked User:FayssalF to review this. I've asked him to post here if he agrees. Please see User talk:FayssalF#Favour. I'm stepping away from this now. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I'll be waiting for User:FayssalF's feedback. ktr (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As a prior step

It is said above that ktr's ISP (otenet.gr) assigns their connection a dynamic IP starting with...either 85.* or 79.*.

I have a question. Can someone or ktr please inform me if otenet.gr assigns connections dynamic IPs starting with other numbers apart from 85.* and 79.*? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, FayssalF. Maybe I (or you) should try e-mailing or calling them, and ask? ktr (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I searched but couldn't find the answer. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP ranges of otenet.gr are here. The helpdesk of otenet.gr stated that the only way they can release that info to me is if I get the law involved. Thankfully, after some googling I managed to find the solution by myself. Regards. ktr (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's some more at 87.*, apparently [3]. Could be a few others yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information ktr.

[edit] Notes

Why did I ask the question above? Well, because the CU for ktr is clean. The IPs used have been 79., 85. and 87. However, these sets of IPs are the same used by another editor of the area ktr edits. Other editors of the same set of articles edit from different places (apart from Greece). So I was curious to know about the info I requested because I found it suspecious that only two accounts editing the same few articles use similar IPs while other editors use different others. Nothing suspecious in that but we have here a situation where:

• there are plenty of ISPs in Greece
• one of them (otenet) has around 10 other different IP ranges provided dynamically by otenet apart 85., 87. and 79.
• a dozen of editors editing the same few topics
• but only 2 share the same 3 ranges of those dynamically distributed IPs

[edit] Summary of findings

• ktr is may probably be related to an established account.
• ktr is unrelated to ip 66.96.249.229 He is also unrelated to LittleTinMan.
• user:Elampon is == ip 193.63.55.180 who was edit warring with user:FPS on Ancient Macedonian language. He's still editing under that IP but to something unrelated to the disputed area.

[edit] Review

• I will give the name of the suspected sock-master account to administrators Carcaharot, Moreschi and/or FPS to double check to see if there are any clear signs of sockpuppetry. They can open a SSP case but it would not make sense since I already did the CU myself. However, a SSP tag has to be placed on ktr userpage until the end of the investigation.
• I will ask ktr to explain to me why he targeted administrator Future Perfect Sunshine and attacked him personally. I will be reducing the block to make it fit disciplinary actions against harassment and personal attacks. As I understand, ktr states that he's been following events in this area for a few time before creating this account. ktr then should have known that harassing and attacking people personally is sanctionable in Wikipedia. For now, ktr should remain considered as a suspected sockpuppet.
• It should be noted also that the Moreschi and FPS are administering a hot area of Wikipedia and the ArbCom has already permitted the application of discretionary actions and if they did block this account it is because they judged that ktr actions were disturbing the smooth running of the project. However, and regardless of all the circumstances surrounding this case, I would be glad if administrators would provide more necessary information rather than inappropriate and irrelevant ones before blocking indefinitely for sockpuppetry in the future. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello FayssalF. On 19-4-8, I was browsing through articles related to Greece; when I came across User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Ancient Macedonian language and asked him (here), would you be as kind as to include the citation you just tried to add so the world can see? he burst into a fit of expletives (here), writing, In fact, sock [...] But, sock, what happened [...] And, for any reader of average intelligence, sock, that of course entails that [...] Other than that, the sources are sound, sock. Afterwards, whenever I tried to get him to elaborate on his accusation, in his talk page not in the talk page of the article (actually, hoping to get the attention and intervention of another administrator), he kept deleting my comments (often decorating his edit summaries with further offensive expletives, in Greek); when I, unavoidably, had violated the 3RR, User:Moreschi blocked me (before that, FPaS had asked User:Islander to block me (here): Could you do me a favour and reign them in?). That's how it all started.

FayssalF, I didn't attack anyone, I merely asked FPaS to elaborate on his accusations of me (a new user) being a sockpuppet and got an indefinite block for doing so. ktr (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect FayssalF is referring to this, this and this. I understand that you feel a sense of injustice about the sockpuppet claims, but you need to directly address the problems in the three diffs I have provided. My view, as always, about the claims of sockpuppetry is that the situation is not as clear as Moreschi and Future Perfect claim, that some sort of block was needed, that the indefinite block was excessive and that insufficient justification was only provided after the block was carried out. I am awaiting the information FayssalF has said he will provide about the suspected sockpuppet master, though it would be better, in my opinion, if Fayssal did open a formal "suspected sockpuppets" page for this. I won't add the SSP template myself, as I'm not sure how that works. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I admit that I didn't use the most polite language in those three edits, but why? Maybe I was provoked a little bit? ktr (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but even if you were provoked, an apology for what you said would not go amiss. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Carcharoth, I'll show some good faith and apologize for calling User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a "confused little man" etc (frankly, though, that's what he appeared like). Nevertheless, I expect some compensation from his part, as well. ktr (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a non-apology. You can't apologise and then in the same breath retract the apology. Whether or not Future Perfect decides he needs to apologise is up to him. The best response you could make to any failure of anyone to apologise for sockpuppet accusations, is to work on articles and edit constructively and show them that they were wrong. Now, you might say that you shouldn't have to apologise to be unblocked (and in principle I agree), but the way things work around here, and the position you are in, you do have to be on your best behaviour when asking to be unblocked, and a genuine apology really does help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I, plainly, apologize then. ktr (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'm sorry if this upset you. I will let Future Perfect know about the above thread, though he has said at various points that he doesn't want to get involved further. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. ktr (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I checked my e-mail again, and I was checking the wrong inbox. I've received Fayssal's e-mail and I'm not convinced. The other user he names does edit these articles, but looking at the contributions there is little to tie the two together, mainly because ktr has so few contributions. There is actually substantial circumstantial evidence that the two accounts are entirely unrelated, but I don't want to go into details here. I will say here that I am uncomfortable with the direction this review and investigation is heading in (let alone whether such detailed checkuser investigations were warranted in the first place - there is a reason why Checkuser requests should normally be made openly and be scrutinised before being accepted), and I am sending an email to Fayssal to raise my concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree the user FayssalF identified is unrelated, I told him so too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I've been leaving notes for Future Perfect and Moreschi and FayssalF. Links are here (can't make the link work, scroll down), here (can't make the link work, scroll down) and here (need to click show and then reload the URL to go to the section). I'm away for the rest of the weekend, but hopefully the review can reach some sort of conclusion soon. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking

I am unblocking this account due to lack of a solid evidence that it may be related to a disrupting account on the Greek/Macedonian topic area. I appreciate the apology but ktr should review WP:ARBMAC before making any further edit -remember that ktr was "following what have been going on here." In case of obvious sockpuppetry cases, admins can block without hesitation. In case the best approach would have been blocking for attacks on an admin while waiting for while waiting for the outcome of a SSP or CU request. I'll be on a wikibreak for a couple of weeks but I can read emails. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF. Thanks for clearing it up and for dealing with me respectfully and not in a hostile manner. Also, many thanks to Carcharoth and Bovlb for their help and time. I've added WP:ARBMAC to my watchlist (isn't that what you meant by ktr should review WP:ARBMAC before making any further edit? BTW, does that include all articles or only Macedonia related articles?) and will be checking it for any notices. Another thing: can I remove the 'indefblock' tag from my user page? Regards. ktr (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please use English

Hello. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. P m kocovski (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

When I'll be referring to you (and this reference will be made in your talk-page), sure. ktr (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, fair enough. P m kocovski (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] assuming good faith

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User_talk:MBisanz. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith on other editors, as you do here, implying bad faith on an admin's selection of who to block for sockpuppetry. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was letting User:MBisanz know of a similar incident (accusation of sockpuppetry) I had with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise while joining WP. Is that considered 'bad faith'? Sorry, I had no idea. ktr (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with the use of the word "selective" on the edit summary. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I get the point now; see, there was another incident yesterday (here) where FPaS was present and took no action whatsoever (unlike he did with me three weeks ago). I admit "selective" is a quite loaded word. Anyhow, thanks for letting me know. ktr (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greek alphabet

WP is an encyclopedia not a Web directory. If the fonts have encyclopedic value, it should be described. Bare links to zips of fonts with no other information are not encyclopedic. --Macrakis (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read through WP:EL and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and didn't find anything censurable concerning the links you removed in the Greek alphabet article. I think that what would have been more appropriate for you to do --since you predicated that those links shouldn't be there-- would be to tag the "External links" section with {{{External links}}} (minus one brace from each side) as is the rule. You can still do that now (after replacing the links you deleted) or I will replace the links myself. These freeware Greek fonts are very useful and hard to find for a person studying Greek (f.ex. a student on a low budget who can't afford to buy expensive commercial typefaces). ktr (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And what do you mean by Bare links to zips of fonts with no other information? There was the text 72 Greek freeware fonts: followed by the links of the .zip files and their respective numbers (1-5) here. What did you expect? ktr (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to zip files with no context, no copyright info, etc. aren't appropriate. The link that FP has now put in, to the page discussing the fonts, is appropriate. --Macrakis (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm much more likely to see your replies if you write them on my Talk page! --Macrakis (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)