User talk:Bsharvy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Oregon

Or we now have a workgroup for Portland too! Aboutmovies 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm SQL now...

Just a note, I Had my username changed, to one that I like better (From SXT40 to SQL), if you need anything, I can be reached at User talk:SQL. --SQL(Query Me!) 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the Barnstar. Oda Mari 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My Sandbox (Experiments)

[edit] Question

Hi! You deleted information about POW victims. I think it needed in the article. Please take a look at the last sentence in the line 75. I'd like to hear your decision about the deletion. If it was a mistake and you'd agree with me, would you please put the information back in the article? Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the POW casualties. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korean cuisine

I didn't mean to come off as not caring, I'm just really busy until the end of this coming week as I am a full-time grad student with 18 credits and I am finishing up large term papers. I would like to see everyone come to some agreement so that the article can benefit everyone.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:00, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr\ talk / 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: ":So, I login after about 6 hours and find two new notices on my Talk page. A note telling me that I am accused of sockpuppetry and "You should respond to the allegations.... You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations." It's timestamped: "09:00, 12 March 2008" :Following that I see that I have been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Timestamped "11:28, 12 March 2008 " This is all several hours before I had even had a chance to see what was going on, much less give my side. I was doing stuff like, eating dinner. Maybe you can empathize. :I had two hours to see, investigate, and respond to this allegation. Apparently, editors must login every two hours around the clock or risk being blocked indefinitely without a chance to defend themselves. Hurrah for the system. :As for the specific bullets in Slakr's "Conclusions": * When I look at Rachel63's contribs, I don't see that her first edit was to an article I edited. She edited 3 articles that day, one of which I edited. She edited more the next day, none of which I know anythng about. I see exactly two articles we have in common, one with significant involvement. * I don't see where Rachel63 edited the article on Korean cuisine at all. I see one three-sentence comment on the Talk page. * When I look at my contribs, I don't see a "huge gap from mid december all the way up to the afd". I see edits by me on 10 February, 28 January, 23 January, 20 January, 20 January, 3 January, 23 December 2007. This is, of course, the holiday season. How amazing that people could have similar gaps in editing around Christmas & New Year. They must all be sockpuppets. Are you dense? * I'm mostly active all the time, and apparently Rachel63 has been active for barely 3 months. Get some perspective. * "Both seem to edit Koren articles." I've edited one Korean article. * We're not particularly interested in the same articles. We've been significantly interested in exactly one article. I see no edits Rachel63 has made to the Korean cuisine article, and I see one, very brief comment on the Talk page. I see no edit I've made to any article content she also edited, other than this one in dispute. You gave your conclusions, so I will give mine: Do a fucking checkuser. As far as I can tell, the main thing we have in common is that we live in Asia (population 2 billion). In the meantime, unblock me. Blocking someone with a process that 1) invites them to respond and defend themselves, and then 2) promptly blocks them with no chance to defend themselves is a bullshit way to treat people. You blocked me before you heard my side. If Wikipedia wants to earn disrespect, treating people with this kind of disrespect is brilliant. And after you unblock me (and Rachel63), do a damn checkuser. Then apologize."

Decline reason: "The incivlity you display above is inexcusable. Even without the checkuser evidence, the evidence is quite strong that the two of you are the same person. However, if you wish to appeal and request a checkuser, you may do so via email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or direct contact with the ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org However, please be aware that the editors that respond to those mailing lists are under NO OBLIGATION to acede to your requests. Good day. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I understand that you are frustrated; however, judging by the personal attacks you have made and incivility with which you have approached the block, it's also highly suspicious of sockpuppetry. Mind you, this is coming from someone who is 100% willing to reverse himself when he thinks he is possibly in error. Yet, when compared to people who truly are/believe they are wrongfully blocked, I feel that your rationale for unblocking shows a stark contrast with the norm. --slakr\ talk / 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The incivility could also be due to a bad block due to conclusions you weren't 100% sure of slakr. --Pixelface (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Many people have been blocked improperly before. I haven't seen too many of them react this way. This person's choice of words is pretty disgusting. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:53, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well how would you react if you were blocked right now for being a sock puppet of me? --Pixelface (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your selection of the word, "disgusting" is not much different from Bsharvy's wording. I saw you wrote inappropriate comments on an American politician, so incivility issue is not far from you.--Appletrees (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's quite different. I'm describing someone's disgusting wording. There aren't too many other ways to do that. There are, however, many possible ways to ask someone to investigate your case further and possibly unblock you. And my joke about a politician is neither here nor there, not relevant to this matter, and has nothing to do with civility. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:18, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
If several people consider that your "joke" is not a joke, you should change your attitude. Clearly, the incivility of Bsharvy has something to do with his request for unblocking or checkuser request. --Appletrees (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Bsharvy's incivility does have to do with this. Your perception of my incivility on another page some hours ago does not. If you wish to discuss that, you're welcome to leave a note on my talk page. The unblock was denied already though so I think we're done here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I advise you not to provoke Bsharvy who is very angry at this (possible unfair) block. I understand his anger if he were really not a sockpuppeter of Rachel. I think I can make a checkuser request on them if my intend do not conflict to Wikipedia policy. I think the block is rather quicker than usual although checkuser procedure could be not useful to judge their likeness if they(?) are using a same ISP and living in the same area.--Appletrees (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface: I don't know, but I do know how I'd react to a block I didn't deserve -- it's happened quite a few times before. Even indefinite blocks. And no I didn't react remotely like this. I was pissed, sure, but I didn't talk down to anyone the way Bsharvy is. His language is, as I said, pretty disgusting. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:23, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
You're not silenced, Bsharvy; you could've responded to the accusation civilly here just as well as you could've prior to the block, but you chose to attack everyone instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:21, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...dear Bsharvy, I'm not so convinced that you and the other are the same person. However, as you know there are not many ISPs in South Korea. Konet, Hananet, Hanvitnet cover almost all of internet users in South Korea. Therefore, I do not think that checkuser likely proves no relation between you and her. Rachel's sudden appearance at the discussion over dog meat looked odd per her registered date. Her editing Seoul National Capital Area is also not much attractive article to people unless someone lives there or study urban planning And you once edited or left a note on your neighbor place. (I can't remember what you edited though)--Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "*Yeah, I was a litle rude. When people are rude to you, you tend to be rude back. Not ideal, perhaps, but human nature. This, from Wikipedia's policy, is polite: "You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page." Slakr violated that rule of politness and it pissed me off. Funny, nobody seems to about Slakr's rudeness. Judging people before they even know they are accused is rude. Waiting two hours after the initial accusation to close the case and block someone is rude. Am I allowed to be away from my computer for two hours, and retain the right to "respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page?" *The reasons for this block are virtually non-existent. Two common articles in 4 months. A single article with active dispute involvement. Period. One article with mutual, active involvement. * Jayron32 (whose homepage prominently features the word "Fucking") didn't actually respond to my reasons, but to my incivility. That's fine, but you should know that you are in fact blocking two people. Go tell Rachel63 that your are maintaining a block on her because you think I'm rude. * The main effect of this process, if I care enough, is to make me much more inclined to create a sockpuppet. * Do a checkuser."

Decline reason: "per discussion below and brusqueness of this request. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Bsharvy,-_- I really would submit a RFCU on you and the other for any possibility that you are 'innocent'. However, after seeing this unacceptable, unbelievably rude unblock request, I think it is much better for Wikipedia to let you go regardless of this sock puppetry accusation. I don't think admin Slakr violated the wiki policy, because the evidence looks quite convincing to at least two admins and several other people. I think you're not that desperate to be unblocked. --Appletrees (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaring your inclination to create a sockpuppet is probably not the best way to get unblocked. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:30, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Making people more inclined to create a sockpuppet is probably not the best way to prevent sockpuppetry. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Preventing sockpuppetry is impossible and not the goal. Blocking the ones we know of is all we can do, and we won't refrain from doing it just in case someone decides to circumvent the block by creating a(nother) sockpuppet. Besides, no one actually cares if sockpuppets exist -- they're only a problem if they're used in a disruptive way. If someone comes back from a block as another user and edits constructively, no one would know about it, and no one would care. If they're disruptive, they'll get dealt with again. So you see, telling us that we should be handling this differently lest someone be inclined to create a sockpuppet is simply not a concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict) You mention you were having dinner, so I figured I should reconsider given the new assertion, because I'm reasonable. Of course, the downside to demanding more review is that the door swings both ways, and since I've now had more time to look over both of your contributions, the discrepancies in the editing are even more clear. When you're logged in and editing, the other user is not. When the other user is logged in and editing, you are not. In fact, right now, as you're locked into being logged into this account, the other user has yet to make an unblock request— despite vehemently denying an allegation of sockpuppetry.
I could run actual stats on it to show, numerically, how highly improbable that the gaps are due to randomness, but if you simply plot out the two contributions on the same graph over time, the abrupt sawtooth is evident. Check it for yourself. Line up the timestamps of your contribs, and the classic sockpuppetry pattern emerges:
Long term / advantageous sock use pattern
You edit Sock edits
You edit Sock doesn't edit.
Sock doesn't edit You don't edit.
This means that over the long term, both you and your sock edit around the same time, but since your sock isn't your main account, it doesn't edit when you aren't editing as well; though, the main account is totally free to edit without the sock, because, well, it's the main account. In this instance, based on both users' contributions, there is significant correlation between the general edit intervals on the long run.
Hour-by-hour / lazy login pattern.
Primary edits Sock goes inactive
Sock edits Primary goes inactive
Primary edits Sock inactive
Sock edits Primary goes inactive
Here we see the pattern of lazy login. The primary account logs in and makes a string of edits, and the other account goes dormant during the entire time the other one is active. Then, the sock account goes active, but suddenly the primary account becomes dormant. Presumably this happens because sockpuppeteering is a pain, and since most people trying to push a point a view demand immediate results, they easily get sidetracked into making a long string of edits on their alternate accounts. Because they're human, the longer they try to keep up the sockpuppeteering, the more mistakes they'll make— especially if they don't think they are or ever will be scrutinized closely.
... and that's only in the edit intervals. Once we throw in the exact same point of view edits, the same locale, the similar article interests, the same mistakes in filing the 3RR reports, and the similar grammatical patterns, the probabilities start stacking up. There comes a point where one can simply stop adding up the factors because they've become astronomical. However, since you demanded it, I obliged. It's not checkuser, but in the age of proxies, home vs. work ip addresses, and multiple internet connectivities, IP addresses simply aren't as reliable as they used to be. A contributions list, however, is timeless.
--slakr\ talk / 02:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
To respond to the unblock request above... I refused to unblock you because you are CLEARLY the same person as Rachel. The evidence is overwhelming. I only noted your incivility, but it had no bearing on the fact that you are abusing multiple accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Do a checkuser. Your reasoning was either impossible to follow, lacking in specifics, or factually wrong. What the timestamps show is that Rachel63 is just not very active. The "same locale" is probably Asia (2 billion) or Korea (50 million). When you use that as evidence, you have really lost perspective. We don't have similar article interests. This has already been pointed out to you. We were active on exactly one article in common. We have shared a grand total of two articles. She mostly edits articles on Korea, as you said. I've edited exactly one article on Korea. You keep saying I "botched" the 3RR, but you never say how. There is nothing to respond to. I'm not aware of "botching" it. Ditto for "the similar grammatical patterns." Rachel63 and I have similar grammatical patterns, huh? Explain.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I'm sure I can get another IP. The only difference next time will be less faith in Wikipeida admins, and the way the site operates generally. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the evidence when taken together, as was pointed out to you on multiple occasions. You keep responding to each individual point to try and convey its benign nature, but that isn't the point. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:20, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Do you just sit at your computer and refresh my Talk page every 30-seconds? Anyway, no I don't just point out the benign nature of his points. I point out that they are wrong. We don't have similar interests, there is no history of actively editing the same articles, we don't have similar grammatical patterns, and to my knowledge I didn't botch a 3RR report. Both living in Asia (which is unconfirmed) is beyond benign: it is utterly irrelevant. The pattern analysis is certainly interesting, but I don't see how it means what he says it means. Particularly not when applied to an editor with a very short editing history, i.e. few data points. I think if you match that with any active user, you can find slakr's "evidence" of "intervals."
This is my last comment unless there is a checkuser. If there is no checkuser, I will just create another account. Maybe I will make a sockpuppet too: what is there to lose? I can't avoid the accusations and bans either way. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
From the moment when 'Rachel' started editing just a few weeks ago she immediately had a very sophisticated knowledge of all aspects of wikipedia procedure and was very vocal about it. 'Her' main energies were devoted to this. Very suspicious. Colin4C (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy, you said you and her have only "one" common interest, but your claim is wrong.

You once revealed that you're not a Korean and live near Seoul on the talk of Korean cuisine.

Ansan that you edited is a small city located in Seoul National Capital Area. It is improbable for non-Koreans residing in South Korea to edit the articles unless they live there as their local interest. So 50 million is wrong data. The Seoul National Capital Area has a population of 22.8 million as of 2005 according to the page.--Appletrees (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)