User talk:Akhilleus/archive7

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vml132f

Hi, I'm confused, I thought meatpuppets would be treated in the same way as sockpuppets when it comes to blocking policy? Vfml132f has probably already migrated to a different account, but I fear that User:DDRG will continue his edit warring/vandalizing unless he's blocked for his disruptive behaviour/meatpuppetry & external canvassing. Also, what about the fact that Vmfl132f used a meatpuppet to go around his 3rr block?Mackan 20:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is Inconclusive[1] I do not support the personal attack. You should discontinue the personal attack, and return to the discussion. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I'm 99% certain Azukimonaka is a meatpuppet (and possible sockpuppet of either User:ShinjukuXYZ or User:Necmate, accounts which fell into disuse after receiving a fair amount of warnings). While he has been "fleshing out" his account by making edits to manga articles, this is entirely in line with what is recommended in this 2ch thread [3] (the source of most, if not all, of thesse Japanese meatpuppets). This is literally what it says, post nr 3:

"First, register an account (...) Then, do not ONLY edit articles relating to China/Korea, but do also make edits to articles that interest you (...) If you have a history of making such edits, it gets harder for other to say you are a troll". If you have a look at his contrib list, it is also apparent that it didn't take long before he made controversial edits, for example this one [4], denying comfort women (an issue both ShinjukXYZ and Necmate were active in [5][6]). It didn't take long till he proceeded to other articles mentioned in the 2ch thread - Joji Obara, Asahi Shimbun, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenics in Showa Japan etc etc. He also posted a checkuser on me, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mackan2, just as Necmate had done before him, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mackan. There are a hundred more similarities, especially linguistically, but also his copycat warning [7] to my talkpage after I had posed an identical one on his page [8], something several other Japanese 2channelers have been up to, for example User:LuckyandLucky, and so on and so on. Mackan 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another suspicous anon IP [9] Mackan 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, these edit summaries seem much too similar for it to be a coincidence: Azukimonaka: "The part deleted by a personal attack of Calton is returned", "Information that Mackan concealed is returned." [10][11]

Necmate: "The deleted source is returned.", "The source that the South Korea user deleted is returned." [12][13] (my bolding, of course). Mackan 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's yet another anon ip, obvious meat/sockpuppet: [14]. Btw, you asked me on my talk page what additional users I thought were meatpuppets, and I have done this in quite some detail, but I'm still waiting for a response from you. It was my hope you would take action against these meat/sockpuppets? Mackan 12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Miaers

Hi Akhilleus, I stumbled upon your conversations with Orangemike re:User:Miaers a few minutes ago. I'm offering what little experience I have in dealing with complex/longterm disruption and vandalism. I'm opening a neutral report page (in line with WP:AGF) in my userspace and in order to help stop further disruption by Miaers.--Cailil ^talk 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interject Akhilleus I'm preparing to make a report to CN about Miaers behaviour should I wait till the WP:AN discussion is finished or would you prefer to report Miaers yourself? --Cailil ^talk 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My report on CN is posted here--Cailil ^talk 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus on a further review I've changed my suggesion on the CSN for Miaers to "topic ban" with probation. All their disruption at WP:AN was related to the edit war and if that is taken out of the equation they may become a refomed wikipedian. There is one strange thing I might just ask your view on. I've had a user (User:MariusM not an admin) "oppose" the Miaers proposal minutes after they opposed another proposal of mine at WP:CSN (I know I'm very active) could you just have a look at that if you've got a second. I'm sure the opposition is in good faith but I'm not sure they've read the reports--Cailil ^talk 17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mat4404

Thanks for looking at this. Regarding your comment about the use of warnings, there seemed very little point with issuing a warning to Mat4404, as the sockpuppetry appeared to be so blatant. --RFBailey 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Former wikilink I changed was red.--MariusM 12:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

miaers

I just deleted my comment when your's showed up. The fact that an AfD was decided only yesterday is too soon to stir up the pot. I'm also not sure what miaers wants and if it is logical. Your comments noted but didn't change anything because of timing.VK35 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)that is, I deleted my comment on his talk page a minute before your note. My, you are quick!VK35 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy lesson for today. In that link, you wrote: I'd just like to note that Miaers is currently blocked for 3RR, and so cannot participate in this discussion. S/he should probably be given a chance to speak in self-defense.:

I can image that a block often fuels anger. There's a role for that, but there's also a role for people to speak in their defence. I'm not ready to participate in some high level discussions but reading them, I can see how sometimes judgement calls are good and sometimes administrators are too quick to gang up on others. No response is needed for this thought of the day.VK35 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn Cramer

Howdy, I don't understand why you reverted my edits. DEFAULTSORT suggests using a ":" is more efficient than using the template (i.e. "|") version. Also, using DEFAULTSORT means the subject is unnecessary in the category syntax. If you have other information, please let me know. Schmiteye 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I was wondering why all of my date changes were reverted? Thanks. Schmiteye 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Looks good now. Thanks! Happy Trails! Schmiteye 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Theory

I know what a theory is, and the page confirmed it. Its a speculation. To say that its happening is biased, which we aren't supposed to be. After all, there is doubt when you look at facts ;-)

You know what? Sorry. My mistake. Sorry for this. :)Zachninme 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite surprised at the quality of the article. This is probably the largest article, at least that I've seen, that isn't "pushing" Global Warming, and at least gives a somewhat neutral stance.

About meatpuppets...

Left you a (probably inadequate) response at my user talk. Hope it will help.... Dekimasu?! 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus, thanks for asking Dekimasu for a confirmation. There is however a problem with the thread, as soon as it reaches a 1000 replies, it will be archived and unaccessable to anybody who doesn't have a special "2channel viewer" browser. There is a lot of evidence in that thread, and it would be a shame if it all disappeared. I have saved the page in it's entirety on my HD, but as I expect I could be accused of having tampered with it, I would much appreciate if you too, or perhaps Dekimasu (I will shortly post on his talk page too) could save the page onto your hard drive. Also, I didn't mention this before, and I don't know to what extent it's relevant, but there are some very serious personal attacks made on my person on that page.Mackan 08:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So. 2 channels are bulletin boards that do not use login ID. In a word, Mackan can be disguised. The user who abuses Mackan has the possibility that is Mackan. This is an action of two channels that is called "Make and play by oneself". In many cases, this action is executed by the user defeated at the discussion. And, he insists that the user who doesn't admit his own opinion is a racist. Manager Hiroyuki Nishimura of 2 channels comments. It is difficult for the person who cannot see through the lie as the lie to use the bulletin board.

Your note

Thanks for letting me know. Just someone trying to cause trouble and embarrassment — the usual thing, in other words. Thank you for handling it! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin deleted the note you left on her talk page [15] and then archived her talk page [16]. Tiamut 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Endowment

This is to let you know that the endowment of both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are larger than 300 million. It is ridiculous to say the total endowment of the UW is less than that of an individual UW campus. Miaers 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also your replacement of the UW system website at the external link section with some irrelevant link is considered a vandalism. Miaers 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, could you reply my message. I think the number from the UW official website should be more authoritative and accurate. Not like those number that comes from some unknown organization on the internet. Also please use some brain and be able to see the difference between a part and a whole entity. Miaers 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, you're misinterpreting the number you found on the UW system site; Lordmontu has already explained why. Please stop saying things like "Also please use some brain" [17]; it's a personal attack, and if you continue with such remarks, you may be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "I misinterpreting the number". UW system includes both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee. The total endowment of the system should be larger than the total of these two. Shouldn't it be so obvious that the number you are using is wrong? By the way, I didn't attack you in any way. Please stop threatening me. Miaers 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, you're taking a number that measures economic impact and saying that it's the endowment. If you want to fix the article, find an official figure for the endowment. And most editors will see statements such as "please use some brain" as a personal attack or incivility, so please don't do it in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you find these words offensive, I'll try not to use them. But I really don't know what else I can use as a susbstitute. So "Please XXX." The economic impact on UW website refers to its funding source. It is equivalent to endowment. Also your replacement of the UW system website at the external link section with some irrelevant link is considered a vandalism. Miaers 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Miaers, you're not getting the point. Essentially, you've said I'm stupid, which is offensive. You're also using "vandalism" incorrectly; content disputes are not vandalism. Finally, "economic impact" is not the same as a funding source. Why don't we stop this discussion, and if you're still interested in the issue, why don't you look for a source that specifies the system's endowment? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you are stupid directly. So it is not personal attack. Can you tell what else I can use in the above situation that you will not find offensive? What the UW website about is its funding sources. It is totally appropriate to use it as a source. Also why did you replace UW official website in the article's "External link" section with a table on an unknown organization's website? If you don't call this vandalism, what do you call it? Miaers 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't say you are stupid directly. So it is not personal attack." Pffffffffff.... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you let me know if you are ok with my explanation about the endowment figure and the external link in UW system? Miaers 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Premature closure of SlimVirgin sockpuppet investigation

I have added to the evidence in the discussion page. I believe that the user SlimVirgin attempted initially to stifle an investigation. That user has also used this technique (along with hiding of edits in seemingly trivial changes on articles: but that's another matter) Your response did not appear to indicate that you have examined that evidence. So I request that you re-open it, and let me know if you need additional detail rather than summarily dismissing the motion. That an administrator attempted to wipe clean another user's accusations against her is grounds enough for further investigation. Although if there is a procedure for some other review of behaviour of an administrator in a suspicious manner: then I'll be happy to pursue that if that is what you would like. Alternatively if you could refer the matter to an administrator that will examine the evidence presented if you are not willing to do so. NathanLee 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I am very sorry. I just noticed I've removed your comment(there were an edit conflict and I was copy pasting my comment and I mistakenly removed yours). I wanted to restore it but I noticed that you've already done that. Sorry again. --Aminz 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems user:Alison restored that. :) --Aminz 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent SSP report

In response to your response to my WP:SSP report of FrankJones23, MonkeyOverlord4 was vandalising a few days back, so the Puppetmaster is still active. Anyway, I'm not sure how effective an IP block would be in the first place, what with the different IP's on the list, could be a dynamic IP.

Just thought I'd bring this up. Thanks, Omega Archdoom^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

User:Lear21 personally attacked me [[18]] in the edit summery of the Superpower page. He has a history of doing this, can you please send him a warning? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence

Did you make that table entirely by hand? It's insanely detailed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's based on the one in the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war case. --bainer (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather it not get lost in the evidence talk page, but you had asked if I thought Miskin was a greek pov pusher, or something to that effect. No, I don't say that, and I don't have, nor have I looked for evidence to support that. I do think he significantly edits contentious topics, that happen to be similarly related: Greek, macedonia, ancient greece etc. It's possible that he is. It's possible he isn't. In the end, it's irrelevant. The reasoning was that because the blocks were on related topics, it shows a pattern of disruptive editing within those kinds of topics. That doesn't extend as far as saying he's pushing a pov on those topics. It only says that he's got a pattern of disruptive edits on those topics. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Chiswick

At first I assumed that this was a newbie, but once I started looking at the details I realised that this guy had been blocked several times and was constantly deleting his talk page to hide the trail. Furthermore, his last couple of blocks followed immediately on from each other, suggesting that he was transgressing again as soon as he could.

Although I only picked up recent potential bad faith edits to one other article apart from the parrot, it was the constant deletion of messages on his talk page (including mine, which he claimed not to have read) that convinced me that this was a problem editor. However, he has emailed me, and after a night's sleep I felt that the block was much too heavy for his "offences", and I've lifted it completely. I'll obviously keep an eye on the situation, especially with regard to any edits to the 2600 pages on my watchlist.

Thanks for your interest, jimfbleak 05:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: A piece of puzzle you may have missed

You might also be interested in the history of Last stand, starting around 1 May. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to cover only the Battle of the Persian Gate and not any other articles, though I'm aware that these same editors edit many of the same articles, mainly because it would be too unwieldy with all that extra information, but also because administrative actions were only taken in response to edits on the Persian Gate article.

Looking at that history page now though, I may need to look into it. --bainer (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding accusation of sockpuppeteering involving me

Dear Akhilleous,

You say that Baby Dove is the same person as Mfantoni. But you are wrong. One of the three IP addresses I have used, seems to be the same as his, However, I am using three different computers in different places. The one I use at home is a dial-up. The ones at the rented offices, are broadband ones and they are used by several people, so they can show different person's contributions. You can check several edits at the same time from Mfantoni and myself since April 9th, when I became an editor, and you can also check the three IP addresses I say for myself. Perhaps your user-checking has not considered all the possibilities.

I hope you can clear this up. Regards, Baby Dove 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not user Baby Dove. Here is a list of simultaneous edits done by that user and I:

• 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way) - BABY DOVE
  
• 00:01, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal - cm) - Mfantoni
  
  
• 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (About the Fourth Way - + ref from Gurdjieff to existing schools in history) - BABY DOVE
  
• 00:00, 11 May 2007 Talk:G. I. Gurdjieff (Aeiou's link removal) - Mfantoni
  
  
• 05:53, 9 May 2007 Centers (Fourth Way) (Other Authors - +ref, cl) - Mfantoni
  
• 05:53, 9 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (The principle of payment - gr, redundant phrase) - BABY DOVE
  
  
• 17:58, 7 May 2007 Talk:Fellowship of Friends (Proof of Advertising - typo) - BABY DOVE
  
• 17:58, 7 May 2007 m Talk:Fellowship of Friends/Draft rewrite (Consciousness and Functions - Added missing space) - Mfantoni
  
  
• 05:16, 20 April 2007 Talk:Centers (Fourth Way) (Susan Zannos - personal opinions?) - BABY DOVE
  
• 05:16, 20 April 2007 m The Teachers of Gurdjieff (Corrected name of publisher) (top) - Mfantoni
  
  

Mfantoni 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you underestimate Akhilleus's experience with these matters :) Aeuio 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IPs

You state that a number of IP addresses are "clearly me" without any stated basis. I don't think such question-begging is appropriate. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding sockpuppets

If a user has already been indef. blocked, is there any point in reporting said user as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user? I ask, well, because I have reason to suspect that OhBoyPopIsOffPeter (blocked for vandalism within the past hour) is the latest sock of Peter1PopoffNill. My suspicions only came after the former was blocked for serial vandalism to the Peter Popoff article. ---Cathal 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. You answered my question, and confirmed my suspicion. Thanks. ---Cathal 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG

Hi, it's about the Japanese sockpuppets again. After a long long time of edit warring, finally a conclusion was reached on the Joji Obara talk page. Everything is fine and peaceful until User:DDRG comes along again[19]. This user keeps on violating talk page consensus, refuses to participate in any conversation for any longer period, and is yet to make a single constructive edit. Attempts to discuss things with him have been made, but seemingly to no avail. What should I do? What is the next step? Mackan 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman

You closed this while it's still an ongoing problem. That guy is still creating new users and the articles he's messing with are still not protected from him. Baseball Bugs 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then they need to get busy and semi-protect the pages. That's much more efficient than watching for every new user he invents. He's created 6 in the last 3 days, and he ignores all requests to do things the right way. Baseball Bugs 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So, you don't want to slow him down? Baseball Bugs 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And the more open it continues to stay in this case, the more he'll persist. You need to semi-protect all the articles he messes with, as well as blocking his new puppets. Keep in mind he uses IP addresses a lot also. He's apparently working (so to speak) in the New York area, so if one PC won't let him in, he just goes to another one. And blocking IP addresses isn't fair to legitimate users. So you need to semi-protect the articles for a week (for starters) and continue to block his new puppets. Because, frankly, I'm getting tired of wasting my time on this guy. Meanwhile, he's continuing to mess with pages, so I've got to get back to reverting him. Baseball Bugs 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for taking up the semi-protection torch and blocking his latest item. He put a new spin on it, updating the Chester Arthur article, but unsourced as usual. Meanwhile, I just posted a rhetorical question on Retrosheet. Since the "Ron Liebman" editor has referenced it vaguely from time to time, the light went on and it occurred to me that the likes of him could probably also be updating Retrosheet, and that therefore it is a suspect source for wikipedia articles, at least without independent confirmation of the same info. In short, Retrosheet is arguably just a fancy "weblog". I'd like your opinion on that point. Baseball Bugs 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlantis in art, literature and popular culture

Hi Akhilleus. I am confused by the name of this section. I would have thought that the whole article could be described as the above section and article name. By what means is a distinction drawn, for example, between a current song and Plato's work? When does it become trivial? Regards, ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think you forgot the salutation at the start of your response. This is just a academic discussion, please don't think I'm a digruntled editor. It relates to something I'm wondering about at the moment, this was my previous edit which regards trivia. It seems to be becoming a hot topic, there is a lot of tagging and deleting going on at the moment. Trivia should be removed, but it is a judgement call as you said. I should have chosen a better example, but I think you answered my question. It would seem that both articles could be named as above. It could almost be an example of content forking, in my understanding of the term. Has renaming it as a list been considered? ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that you had done that, I had supposed that something like that had happened. I imagine it would be very frustrating to have to deal with edits, say, by fans of a TV show (perhaps cute witches in suburbia or something) that habitually makes reference to myth and legend. TV writers attempt to give depth to their creations in this way, fans probably think this is more significant than it is and leap to include a link to their favourite article. However, the formation of sub-articles (a deprecated practice, nu?) might often lead to the permanent deletion of contributions, thus my suggestion of a list. I think this is similar to my trivia section to deletion analysis that I mentioned at the the noticeboard. That might not be the intent of editors, but it is the likely outcome it seems. Why don't you move it and call it a stub, it would save it from the grave diggers at AfD. It is a fascinating subject - Atlantis - but I can't remember why I was watching it. It does make for an interesting example for my overview of the workings in our community. Thanks for helping me to think out loud about this, I won't take up any more of your time. Cheers, ? Fred|? discussion|? contributions 04:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

SSP

Hi Akhilleus. Since it seems that almost no one else seems to care about this situation, I wanted to note that, after seeing this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Harebag and noting some corroborating evidence in the user's contributions, I feel pretty confident that Harebag might also be related to User:VK35. VK35, you might remember, was unblocked by Jimbo a few days ago despite checkuser confirmation and corroborating evidence that VK35 is a sock of Dereks1x. I wanted to notify someone else of this because I noticed that Harebag has been "interacting with" VK35, even encouraging VK35 to try to become an admin. I've almost gotten to the point where I want to wash my hands of the whole mess, but I wanted to note this to you given that you seem to have an immeasurable amount of patience for dealing with sockpuppets (bless you!). · jersyko talk 22:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)