User talk:Akhilleus/archive12

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

sock puppetry case

Hey, about my Opp2 sock puppetry case, Nightshadow28 has commented negatively about my initiation of the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2. Is it that we're not allowed to run 2 at the same time? An admin recommended me to go for RFCU instead & that's why I began it.

Also, should I stop working on that RFCU & wait for the arbitration instead? I don't know that there's a written rule about dealing w/ sock puppetry separately from the arbitration case. (Wikimachine 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Also, if you think so, could you delete/close that RFCU case? Thanks. (Wikimachine 19:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

confirm sock?

RE: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 (2nd)

Can you confirm that this is a sock?

Thanks in advance for your response, especially since it looks like you are very popular because of your sock work. :) Travb (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, its been a few days since I first asked, is it possible you can confirm that these two people are the same? Travb (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr/Ms. Akhilleus You are not the first person with checkuser priveledges who was purposely vague. You would make a great lawyer :) I understand you have an important and coveted power, so you gotta be careful. Thanks again sir/ma'am. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Next time I will go the full check user route, but there is no reason to now. thanks. 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

Paula Campbell?

Hi, Akhilleus. I was just working on the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and I moved Paula Campbell (singer) to Paula Campbell. After moving the page, I noticed that the article had gone through an AfD in June, here. You closed the AfD as a delete, but it doesn't seem the page was ever deleted (unless I'm missing something). Do you know what happened there? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I see now that I missed it because there aren't any deleted edits there, so I assumed it had not been deleted. I also have no opinion on the page's existence; I'll look into the subject's notability, and if it seems appropriate, I'll send it back to AfD, or just re-delete it. Thanks again. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for closing this sockpuppet case. =) It was a bit surprising to me to say the least. -- Gogo Dodo 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel

You recently archived a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel. I have reason to beleive another sock has popped up at User:ASODSKISJjd, the motive is exactly the same as detailed in the archived case. This account recently created Slinkman's Last Stand, which I've tagged as a banned user. I've also tagged the user page as a suspected sock, and placed a note on the talk page. Hoping you can assist without having to reopen the case, or give me some direction. Thanks! Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Rome and ancient Rome

Hello,

You moved Religion in Ancient Rome to Religion in ancient Rome on March 2007, arguing: ancient shouldn't be capitalized.

In Commons Wikimedia, most pages about “Ancient Rome” use capitalization. So, can you explain me why capitalization is not correct English in this case? --Juiced lemon 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC) heh heh heh odysseus is DEAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by XSolidxSnake (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism/Chicago Surrealist Group/Surrealist Movement in the United States

As an administrator, have you involved yourself at all in the various edit disputes that have transpired in any of the above-listed articles? I enquire because I have only recently added these articles to my watchlist, and am dismayed at the degree of edit-warring, trolling, and sockpuppetry that have gone on. This seems to relate, in particular, to questions of notability and verifiability in regard to articles about "contemporary" Surrealist groups (i.e., the latter two articles). I have made it clear on the Surrealism talk page that I have had enough of ideologically-motivated editing and the use of these articles, and their respective talk pages, as battlegrounds between factions. If I can ask you (hopefully, not often) for assistance in these matters, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, sir, I have no expectations of a quick solution. I am not so naïve as to have such an expectation. The first step, it seems, is to clear out the garbage that resulted in the main Surrealism article being removed from FA. After that, other related articles can be improved. I thank you for your time as well as for your response. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA.

Now I won't be bothering you for mopping services quite so often. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman sockpuppet case

You said it should go to CheckUser. Did you mean I should file it myself? I tried, and the instructions demanded I supply various data in places that don't exist. Art LaPella 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that sounds as if I'm angry at you. I'm not. Art LaPella 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's a Code F. But if it isn't too late now, where is the "appropriate place" for that and other fields, as described in the instructions and at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard#Iantresman? Art LaPella 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

For the latest blocks in the ongoing, and seemingly never-ending, saga of Dereks1x's sockfarm. E-I-E-I-O. Tvoz |talk 04:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lahiru k (2nd)

Re [1] There's actually a fair amount of work still going into this case, specifically trying to assess whether, despite the checkuser result, Lahiru k and Mystic/Arsath/Netmonger are related. I can clean up the unsubstantiated allegations and talk to people who left those comments, but it would help if you de-archive the page. I'd do it myself, but think it's untoward for admins to revert each other over things like that.--chaser - t 18:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another sock of Jason Gastrich

"New" user Along the Watchtower. See his edits and this edit by his off-site sock-puppet, in which he makes vague reference to the previous case. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

blatant vandal doing blp damage

Mimic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is an spa bent on denigrating a few Congress leaders. Surprising that he has been at large for a few weeks now. Not a single constructive edit. Article on Prime Minister of India has been the hangout of 13 year old boys for more than a month! 59.91.253.58 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on ANI

Regarding the case of FaysalF blocking two editors, you said the IP evidence is conclusive enough to bloc them. What do you think of this page, where Lahiru proved that SLT does assign different IP addresses to its customers every time they connect. So there is a huge possibility that two different people could have edited Wikipedia with the same IP at different times.

Apart from that, they are willing to come on IRC (or any other chat system you or any admin wants) to prove that they are different users. What more conclusive evidence than that could you have? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This member D1202033 whatever tried to force an edit he made despite everyone including myself deleting it. In the face of the two Mori polls showing most English want the marbles returned to Athens, he kept adding his own little explanation below it in order to counter and help the British Museum side, this was it, LOL:

   These observations, however, ignore the large proportion of the population that did not offer an opinion.[citation needed]

Because of everyone constantly deleting this, he has stated he will delete all unsourced material and hence destroy the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elgin_Marbles#Removal_of_unsourced_statements

A user does serious threatening

Dear Akhilleus,

I am Brincos who had asked about the sockpuppetry of Patriotmissile in [2]. Thank you for your consideration, I have a little bit different opinion, though. You've concluded that Patriotmissile's sockpuppetry was suspected but didn't block it 'cause you didn't think the user's sockpuppetry didn't seem to violate WP:SOCK. However, WP:SOCK says "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." in [3] which is the absolutely forbidden uses of sock puppets. The user used sockpuppetry to gain an advantage over the discussion in [4]. What is more, what I concern is the user has been threatened other users around and about including me. Some users already complained about this as you can see in [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] just than me. The user has been threatened me and are threatening other users.

You can see the overall serious threatening behavior of Patriotmissile in , [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and so on.

How do you think of this, Akhilleus? Brincos 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

SSP

Could you look at this: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:ColourWolf. I don't know what to do with it. Thanks for working at SSP. Rlevse 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning on Stomynight91

I was under the impression that reverting vandalism more than 3 times does not count as violation of 3RR. He was trying to revert the false materials that has been posted on the page, and this warning is not fair for him. Arbiteroftruth 14:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)