User talk:Akhilleus/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thanks...

... for defending my comment on the Witzel talk page. Substantiating it could fill a book, but that would have been quite off-topic. As it happens, her "work" has come up before, e.g here and here. One of her "classics" -- it got copy-pasted, plagiarised, paraphrased and embellished all over a certain predictable section of blogspace -- was this, indeed a good example of her essential style and oeuvre. (It took Koenraad Elst to point out to the Frothing Fringe -- alluded to here -- that the quote attributed to Farmer was actually a quote not of Farmer but of the subject of his dissertation, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola -- but, naturally, no one was paying attention, and no one in her circle does anyway. And as for the innuendo in "Herr Witzel", I'm sure that our "meticulous and correct" columnist would be the last person on earth to inquire into the ethnicity of Witzel's wife.) I suppose we should be thankful that Patung, as far as I know, isn't an editor on WP ;-) rudra 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SSP on Gtadoc

Just wanted to let you know, that, after you closed the SSP report on Gtadoc, discussion began on the talkpage. I'm not sure if that matters or not, but, I thought I'd let you know. --SQL(Query Me!) 06:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an explanation of the finding that there was no violation of policy. The policy very clearly, and repeatedly, states that any show of support is a violation, not just voting. It takes quite a while to make such a case, since links and diffs are required, and it can be complicated. The closing of the case seemed abrupt and without much explanation. A little more communication would be appreciated.Bsharvy 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for the time you spent on this. Please read the policy on sockpuppets. It explicitly states that violations are not limited to voting. These are violations:

  • "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes...using more than one account in discussions such as ... on talk pages."
  • "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."

So I don't understand why you only talk about double-voting. The definition of a violation is not restricted to double-voting. Maybe the policy that is applied does not reflect the policy that is written. If so, please edit the policy page so it is accurate. If the policy page stated the policy you just stated--that only double-voting is a violation--I wouldn't have spent nearly an hour making the report.Bsharvy 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Venom-smasher

A user argues the same way as an old disruptive user, he has an unusual understanding of Wikipedia despite the fact he has never edited a page before the ones listed, and motive can be found in the fact that an administrator warned the original user from engaging in this very behavior and disruptive editing. How can this not be seen a suspected sockpuppet? The Filmaker 00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

sock of a troll

Please note that User:Ankush135 is a sock of the troll called Bharatveer. (I am just Kuntan.)Pickled herring red 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That made me laugh, Akhilleus.no offece taken or meant.:)59.91.254.94 13:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
See the same a** applying sock template on Hornplease and Doldrum.59.91.254.94 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Akhilleus, 203.112.84.138 on which Ankush is socking is a proxy, Google it and you can see.59.91.254.20 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Joe Szwaja and Jean Godden

Would you consider:

There's a case open at WP:COIN already. I think we need to pour ice water on the combatants. - Jehochman Talk 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with these guys already. See User_talk:Raymond_arritt#User:Landsfarthereast. The diffs don't look like NLT territory to me; though he goes on about "liable" he's talking about it in terms of community based action and not the legal system. I've dug through this stuff a bit and what we seem to have is two partisan political editors going at it. User:Landsfarthereast is more aggressive and uncivil but both look like they're POV-pushing and I'd hesitate to block one but not the other (unless LFE goes completely round the bend on his threats). I don't see where semiprotecting would help much since most of the kerfluffle is between registered users. Raymond Arritt 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I appreciate some very distanced editors coming in to the mini edit war that I somehow got dragged into between the two registered editors. I took issue with some unsourced material and then copyrighted material and got dragged through the mud by one of the editors. I hope some sort of consensus can be reasonable reached. POV pushing is going on strong and as long as it is at least cited, I am going to stay out of deleting content.201.240.31.236 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not convinced that this IP user isn't one of the edit warriors or another COI party. The first contribution is a copyright violation notice. That's overly sophisticated for a new user. The 201's contributions focus heavily on the articles in question. I'm thinking RFCU. - Jehochman Talk 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
While I enjoy being thought of as some sort of sophisticated cabal aligned with a COI party in an out of the way largely uncontested city council race in Seattle, I am sitting at my computer in Lima, Peru editing articles of interest. I have not registered to date, but am thinking I will - it might take away a lot from sockpuppet charges or claims of COI. You can certainly do an RFCU - I am nowhere near the other two editors and not involved in either campaign (in fact, I think they both have some significant issues). I do take issue with POV and unsourced content and the record of this Szaja guy beating up his girlfriend and then trying to whitewash it. None of my edits have been unsourced (they go back before the copyright notice by the way, I have have a dynamic IP, so just look for 201.240 and you will see my edits). I have been focused on Seattle issues and hope to expand broader at some point, but have to jump off somewhere. I respect the contributions of both Raymond Arritt and Jehochman. I am less enthralled by some of the recent patrol bots that seem to take any editing as vandelizing without human though involved.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.31.236 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you may want to note there's also an ANI thread on this [3]. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Socks

You might need to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Allgoodnamesalreadytaken: Abuse of Warning Templates, Stalking. The user feels that you closed the ssp report inappropriately, and a clarification on the close may be needed. Cheers. --DarkFalls talk 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

hi

i'm the blocked User:Bormalagurski. I see you reseted my block to one more year because i wrote 3 articles - did no vandalism. BTW, i could've easily not revealed that I was Bormalagurski, but I thought that writing a few articles wouldn't hurt and since i revealed that i had a sockpuppet, i obviously didn't want to use it anymore. If you don't want to revoke my block, it's pointless for me to have the Bormalagurski account, because I want to forget about my past and start writing constructive articles. Please delete my Bormalagurski page/account/whatever you can, i don't care anymore. I don't want to have "blocked" on my page when someone searches my name on google, if you know what i mean. If you feel that the new block is not really neccessary, leave the old one and i'll continue to write articles after the block expires, as per arbitration comitee decision. Whatever you do, don't leave it like this, please, i'm tired of being a prisoner of my past, i want to start a new page. you can block this account too if you want.. --KasterJeShupak 08:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion re Bakasuprman

I commented on your incivility thread. Bakasuprman is one of what appears to be an affinity group of users with similar ideas and open contempt for wikipedian standards (read their talk pages and editing history), who often support each other. IMHO, it is a waste of time to consider mediation with such repeat, unrepentant users who share common values, one must try to go to arbitration where meaningful sanctions can be enforced. One of this group, Bharatveer, has been taken directly to arbitration for similar behavior, and of course "Baka" has taken his usual combative approach in supporting him there. I suggest reviewing the arbitration case [[4]] and initiating a similar approach with "Baka", documenting his plethora of offenses. BTW, somewhat illuminating of the tone in his edits when an editor chose to put this on the "Baka" talk page as one who he thought would be interested in such views[5].--Dseer 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Southside A prod.

I came across that article while checking prods with mismatched dates. I thought that any prod removal, so long as it wasn't blatant vandalism, was enough to defeat the prod, even if it is a sockpuppet. I believe this article should go to AfD because of the removal. I haven't done it because you're an admin who doesn't appear to be directly involved, but I wanted to register my $.02 on the matter. --UsaSatsui 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of unsolved problems in Egyptology

An article that I had been involved in editing, List of unsolved problems in Egyptology. Why was this deleted? It seems as if there was no consensus. [ponders the "cabal"] J. D. Redding 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mopping needed

Hi, I need a bit of admin intervention. There's a case on WP:COIN about Scottish Knights Template. In looking at this case I found what looks like a role account: User:GSGOSMTH. This is an improper username, a possible sock puppet, and a COI-only account. Could you indef this one, please? - Jehochman Talk 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith T/C 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

Sorry for the delay - I was away. The problem with the report was that it simply pointed to the revision and did not show the diffs between versions. Being able to review the diff makes it much quicker to understand the the facts of a report (esp with popups enabled). Reports that require admins to go into the history to manually view the diffs between versions are much more effort to deal with and many admins with limited time may simply pass over them in favour of a later report which has been made with diffs. Sorry if this sounds like teaching granny to suck oval objects but I hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. I went back and checked again. For some reason my popups weren't working when I did this one and I was convinced I had to check the offence manually but the diffs work perfectly now. *confuddled* Sorry - I was wrong and I apologise for any offence that I may have caused. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with Sockpuppetry

A brand new account, Itzguru (talk · contribs), has spammed links to some site on various pages. I reverted it on the Aryan Invasion Theory page, and have now had that reverted back by an IP account with a remarkably congruent edit history (same site being spammed, and the very first article touched the same for both.) Could you take a look, please? rudra 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I just posted a 3rd report on Creepy crawler, but the headiong's all fouled, and I can't figure out my mistake. can you help? ThuranX 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up whatever I missed. between leaving my first note here and your work, i resolved the worst of it, but still.... ThuranX 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A misunderstanding about the Three-revert rule

Heyo. A few days ago on the Three-revert rule noticeboard, you stated that a complaint I filed was "no violation" saying "This isn't a 3RR violation, since the 4th 'revert' listed here deals with different material than the first three." A quick read of WP:3RR will show that this is clearly false. Specifically, the 3RR is that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." The policy goes on to explicitly state, in the "What is a revert?" section, that "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." Your judgment that no violation occurred was mistaken; although by the time you or anyone else commented on the report, it was stale anyway. No block was needed so long after the violation.

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd)

I believe that Zodiiak erred in his modification of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd). He overwrote an older report (see [6]) detailing an account of sock-puppetry which had been tagged with the admonition: The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Instead, Zodiiak should have created a new article "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd)" to document this latest instance of sock-puppetry. Question: can we revert Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (2nd) back to the August 27th version and create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TyrusThomas4lyf (3rd) to contain the currently exhibited information? This way, we preserve the record of TyrusThomas4lyf's previous attempt to subvert the block that was placed upon him and create a new record for his latest attempt. Myasuda 13:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect -- thanks for fixing this up! Myasuda 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with a sock puppet

Hello friendly admin. You have previously helped me with a particular sock named User:Gamer Eek. Gamer Eek spelled backwards is Remag Kee, and, true to form, Remag Kee (talk · contribs) has already begun to cause trouble at dab pages with Eep²'s particular style of editing. Would you be so kind as to do another block? Thank you kindly. --Paul Erik 18:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

Hi. I have reviewed a template at User talk:Yidisheryid. Regards, Navou banter 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

Would you be able to delete the below message?, as I feel it violates my privacy as per wikipedia: Wikipedia Privacy Issues.



Tweety21

You closed the sock inquiry for Tweety21, who managed to get herself an indefinite block even before it was closed. As soon as one of the IP blocks expired (this one only had a 24-hr block), she went on an absolute tear (contribs), evading the block on her account. According to whois, the whole range of 142.205.xxx.xxx is owned by Toronto Dominion Bank (where she works, presumably); I was wondering if you would consider blocking that range. A google search (link) doesn't seem to indicate anyone else from that range editing here. It's not the only place she edits from, but most of her anonIP edits are. Anyway, if you think it's excessive, I'll understand; I'm just a little paranoid after she went after a bunch of articles I created by request (I hang out at WP:AFC and have a list on my userpage). Precious Roy 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That'll work. (Still, judging by her editing style—multiple edits to the same page within a short period of time—I think she is responsible for all (or almost all) 1000+ edits from that IP range; she's been on WP since Dec '05 at least.) In the spirit of not blocking other potential editors (and if it's ok with you), I'll just pass you the IPs as she uses them, rather than list all the ones she's used in the past. Thanks for your assistance. Precious Roy 12:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, my work computer IP was blocked in the collateral damage as well. I'm pretty surprised as I'm the only one that uses it, the terminals are user-specific. If there is any way that you somehow grant an exception to my account, I would much appreciate it. GoldDragon 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what does this mean: I've put the {{unblock-auto}} in the sandbox. Copy the {{unblock-auto}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. GoldDragon 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, much appreciate your help. Again, I understand that the blocking is part of your job and I though I was caught in it, I bear you no ill-will. GoldDragon 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles

that idiot has put up a disputed neutrality tag again. Any ideas? Reaper7 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


D666D 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)"That idiot" is a different person and far from an idiot thank you very much. I've never read this article before and came to it and found it totally biased- as do many people on the talk page apparently- and from the above comment, others before me have questioned the neutrality of this article also. As I suggest on the talk page for the Elgin Marbles, perhaps the whole article should be renamed and the page left for a description of the marbles and only a mention of the fact that many of them are scattered around the globe.