Jump to content

User talk:F=q(E+v^B)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

July 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - namely, having a fight with yourself on WP:ANI. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

F=q(E+v^B) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Let me clarify the situation, please read throughout (sorry this is so long...), it is the truth (at least I know it is).

I know its difficult to understand, but from 05/07/2012 to now I have been away from WP for a while (left to a family's home to visit and help another families house with DIY which needed work).

During which another person (who I live with and don't get on well with) used my account for the sock puppetery, and created Hublolly's account to cause all the disruption and abuse, that person was doing the sockpuppetery and damage. Both were on this same computer and hence "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and "Hublolly" have the same IP, that's why they are "technically indistinguishable" [1].

Upon return: I did not know I had been blocked, or about the damage done (WP:ANI) (untill now).

We both have to share the computer (can't afford one each). He knows my electronic personality and writing style, and eneogh maths to cause disruption at Ricci calculus in writing up the exterior product. Given that there was consensus against including this - do you think I would deviously use another account just to tread around all the other editors and induce a fake opposition?

Its not one user with two accounts: its two users one account - user:F=q(E+v^B). I (the one writing this) am the one who started the account in september 2011. Its too difficult to convince people becuase I can't prove what I'm saying. This is a private issue between us - please do not ask for any detials.

  • All the rubbish about "I saw you in the library" [2] never happened.
  • Those edits ~6 months ago or these edits [3][4][5] were also by him, and extrapolated the insane rudeness towards other users everywhere.

I can’t blame you all for not being able to tell that this IS the real entitled user to this account (yes - same one from september 2011), after the done damage. =(

I’m telling you – I am innocent in this. Please understand this is something I would NEVER do to any and everyone, no matter what. Look at my past actions from the first second I logged in up to this edit 05/07/2012 (my very last edit - not the other person's) - does the gradual change in behaviour not seem so suddenly strange? Only concentrating on replying/reverting to this other editor and not editing physics or maths articles? Do you seriously think I would publically announce and waste all that time abusing others and myself, instead editing physics/maths articles?

Now that this account has lost all respect and reputation presumably all will shun the correct user (me) of this account.

  • That doesn’t matter because you all do not understand how much I desire and enjoy to edit (yes - edit, not attack) Wikipedia – it was fun to help but I cannot now =(. Again - I would NOT attack people in such ways.
  • All I want is to make complicated topics easier for everyone - that's my principle in WP and real life, and to uphold the rules (like every other good-faith editor)...

I will ensure privately with this other person this will not happen again. Do you trust to unblock the real user (me) of this account? I am not confident of any support to unblock because everyone now hates this account as vandalistic and abusive (hopfully you are not presuming I am lying just to get back in?)... =(

  • If yes - I can prove it by dilligence (NOT profanity): I will slave over the physics and maths pages every free second I get without sleep in attempt to improve them, to make up the difference in good faith after all the shame that has been caused with this account. It’s true my edits are frequently inferior to everyone else but I never like to stop trying or learning, and want to work hard, and look forwards to working with you guys again...
  • If no: then I just have to live without WP, and bid everyone a fond farewell... (I suppose it helps if there is one less editor inducing spelling mistakes, or with a "messy editing style", or for that matter "out of the way becuase of misunderstood disruption"...)

Please - I hope you understand all understand, but if not I do.

In any case, I wish all of you the very best, and always have and always would/will enjoy collaborating with you all in building the encyclopaedia...

Thank you loads for all your coorperation and actions which favour WP – blocked or unblocked.

Yours, The real F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC) since september 2011 (the person who is now typing this message to fix the mess and do whatever it takes to settle things right) - not the recent F=q(E+v^B)/Hublolly doubled account user by the other person.

P.S. I cannot reply back for a while after this (going back later).

Decline reason:

Based on this explanation, this account has been compromised. Absent a fool-proof way to confirm that you are the original owner, according to policy this account must remain blocked permanently (not indefinitely). Assuming good faith here, I'd suggest following these steps to get back to editing again:

  1. Abandon this account.
  2. Create a new account. Use a password that you know this other person does not know. Add an email address - ideally a new one, but failing that your existing email address. Either way make sure that the email account's password is changed to yet another new password.
  3. On your userpage, leave a disclaimer that you used to edit as User:F=q(E+v^B).
  4. Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Committed identity to establish a means of recovering your account. The way this works, if your account ever gets compromised again, you can email a secret phrase (which only you know) to an administrator you trust. They'll follow the same steps listed on that page, and in doing so will verify that you are who you say you are. Short of meeting with an administrator you've already met in person, this is the only means by which a compromised account can be unblocked.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, however we cannot tell who is actually using the keyboard. You could be the original owner, but as far as we know you could be someone else entirely. Because that involves copyright issues, we cannot unblock this account. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Seems plausible to me -- feel free to unblock without consulting me if you agree. F, if you're unblocked, I'd suggest checking out Wikipedia:Committed identity. I'd also suggest not leaving yourself logged in when you're not actually working. I know it's a pain, but this was a bigger pain. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems plausible to me too, but I was just about to decline the unblock request because F= states above that his last edit was on 5 July, and there have been many intervening edits since then, which means this account has been compromised. Is this a case of WP:IAR where we might make an exception to our policy of never unblocking compromised accounts? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should still wait to see if sockpuppet investigations can confirm if the story is consistent with what they can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh? That was already done yesterday; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hublolly. F= already explained that Hublolly edited from the same house, so naturally the investigation will determine that they are indistinguishable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

F=q(E+v^B). Due to a history of largely good contributions I have considered unblock. However, the decline reason by Hersfold above is compelling and creating a new account with a Wikipedia:Committed identity would be a way to go. If thats a problem leave a message here.--Salix (talk): 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment from disinterested outsider: The force is strong with F=q(E+v^B). Sorry, I stole that, but it's true. Due to his excellent history of physics/math edits and our need for experts in this (they are very rare on WP), we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and his story (at least THIS time). He may need to take a new name (Dr. Lorentz F. or something) and of course new password due to this incident (AND don't let your computer remember it, either, genius-- you're going to have to type it in, each time, while looking over your shoulder). The IP needs to be softblocked so that new account creation is enabled for F=q(E+v^B) to do this, but not for anybody else on his computer. Basically, treat this machine like a high school library computer and schoolblock it, or something. But let us not lose this valued editor just because we can't figure out how to block IP edits or other new editors from his computer. This may be tricky-- perhaps he needs to communicate with an admin telling which new name he intends to use. SBHarris 21:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've now changed the block setting so he can create a new account.--Salix (talk): 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Because you live with someone who uses your computer who is intent on abusing your account, you have to take very seriously what Sbharris above is saying. Consider installing a program like CCleaner to delete more of the browser history than you can using the options available in browsers. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their good-faith comments and advice - makes sense to me. =) (original) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 08:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Recovery

If Hublolly is not now in control of your account, then you should be willing and able to help us to identify (and possibly revert) the edits he did when he was in control of your account. To that end, please do the following:

  • Set your time zone preference to +00:00 so that you are using UTC unmodified.
  • Go through your contributions, Special:Contributions/F=q(E+v^B), and determine which ones were done by Hublolly rather than you.
  • List the intervals (such as "23:42, 9 July 2012 to 10:48, 10 July 2012 inclusive") when he was in control below here.

Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I returned home now. Ok - let me (yes - the original user, not the other offensive sock-puppeteer) clarify several additional things everyone should know; apologies for the length, spelling mistakes, excessive amount of boldface (but that's to highlight important bits in a long response), and delay (many people must be watching this page, but I did say I'd be a while above)...

The time zone setting is already +00:00 UTC, I have checked.

Account usage
Edit patterns

Has anyone noticed the unusual patterns in the edit ranges in the second point?

  • The edits using the Hublolly account were clearly unacceptable.

The edits using this F=q(E+v^B) account were made as good as possible in attempt to match my previous behaviour, by:

to keep up the "good image" of this account and create a "Good hand" and "bad hand" contrast between "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and Hublolly - as much as possible so that his sockpuppetery would not be suspected. However: he also did

which I would not waste time doing.

  • Notice that the edit times between "recent F=q(E+v^B)" and Hublolly are fairly (conveniently) quick and close together? He was logging out from one account to the other alternately on this same computer: to abuse using Hublolly, to "save WP like a "superhero"" using this account.
Other editors at WP:ANI#Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hublolly/Archive

I should add that I have never encountered the following users until responding to the block: Roux, Jprg1966, Qwyrxian, bonadea, Ymblanter.

Roux is a completley seperate person at another computer I have no connection with; and was unfortunately pulled into this mess, incidentally suspected for sockpuppetery (which is appalling - given that Roux didn't create Hublolly for block evasion, Hublolly was sadly created on this computer but not by me).

Removal of rudeness

Since Hublolly's account has been used for very spitefull editing (and this account to bicker and drag it on for days), all remaining rude messages on talk pages involving Hublolly should be deleted (preferably the "recent F=q(E+v^B)" comments I didn't make also), this amounts to simply deleting the sections (IMO):

possibly deleting the entire sections:

but I'm not sure if each user would like to keep them for their records anyway - it's up to each owner of the pages.

Other bad edits have already been reverted in the stupidity spree.

Unless there is a policy against it (records/logs) - I would suggest the Hublolly account to be deleted - there is no point in it sitting there serving no purpose. After this F=q(E+v^B) account is abandoned - will it be deleted? (I would actually prefer it to for the same reason, just asking anyway)

Good-faith help and new account

I appreciate very much the good-faith help you all offer; abandoning this account and creating a new one with the cryptographic hash key does sound like the best solution, and I understand why. I'll do that soon.

Clarify the "library/co-location" lie

This diff seems to have caused much confusion/mystery between some of you (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#F=q(E+v^B) exposed as puppet master).

It. did. not. happen.

I'm sorry for such emphasis - but it didn't. Yes, its true that we live together, and don't like each other, and share the same computer at home. Also:

  • What are the chances of simply glancing at someone at a computer and instantly "realizing" they are editing WP on this account? Why not editing on another account or not editing and just reading (and passing by this page)? I doubt it would be possible to pick up the fine text details in the corners of the screen (thereby "realizing" the user was logged into their account and editing) in the split-second of passing by and glancing... (you wouldn't look into someone's screen while walking past it - would you? you'd be looking more where you are going instead - wouldn't you?...)
  • Since we don't like each other why would he say "hi!" to me??
  • Why would this account suddenly respond to such a description: "YES it was me", so quickly and conveniently??

The point of this stupidiotic play-acting was to reveal myself ("skinny pale-coloured emo wearing a hoody with long black hair" - true but so what???) - something I would never do on Wikipedia because

  • it adds nothing to any conversation on any talk page and couldn't possibly be relevant to the project,
  • I am not vain in such ways,
  • everyone's response to such a post would be: "and?? what about the WP project??" or more likely to just ignore - perfectly acceptable,

and naturally poke fun:

  • "get a life" (because I haven’t much interest in anything but physics/maths, in addition to chemistry and typography),
  • "get a dictionary, a tan, body weight"... (again fun-poking at "what I need" in his opinion...)

It really was embarrassing to read that; worse is that some of you are taking it quite seriously and think it's true that doesn't match my unblock reason above, no?

Again - It. was. play-acting. by. him. not. me. (on both F=q(E+v^B) and Hublolly accounts)

Again sorry for such emphasis - but it was.

About praise/thanks

By all means, some people have deleted the barnstars (for instance) given by me months ago - not the other recent person, since they think those were given by an editing crook the whole time. Feel free to strip away anything I gave as praise or thanks (by me months ago - not the other person).

No need to try to understand I wanted to award some of you for your hard work, and to say thank you for all your contributions, becuase I do appreciate your efforts.

Likewise I will strip my (this) talk page from all barnstars (which I - not the other person, have loosly earned). I don't want them anymore becuase the whole situation is too embaressing to keep them. I'm not even in for barnstars or credit or praise or recognition anyway, in which case the exact opposite to what I wanted has now happend. =(
For those who still think this is hard to believe

I cannot emphasize what I have just said anymore: either you trust that right now I am the original F=q(E+v^B), or not. Up to you, but the fact is I am the original.

I do hope this helps. Many thanks again, looking forwards to getting out of this mess and editing, yours;

(original) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this rather hard to believe. Note that this editor and the banned sockpuppet make characteristic spelling mistakes such as "becuase" [10]. It's quite hard to believe that an individual living in the same house and using the same computer, would put up a facade like this for an entire 5 days, spelling mistakes and all when rather more direct methods would have achieved the same block. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The Edit patterns have already been explained clearly eneogh. Given that everyone (except me) finds my spelling mistakes so obvious, do you think they would be hard to copy? (Original) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the individual's objective wasn't merely to get this account blocked. Rather, it appears the objective was to ruin a reputation by sustaining disruptive activity for as long as possible; the longer it goes on, the worse the reputation gets. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
They both spell it "becuase", all right-- there are instances above on this page on 7 April and 28 May, both of which are far out of the timezone (5-10 July) where "Hublolly" was supposedly operating F = q(E+vXB)'s account. I suppose I could accept two people consistently mispelling a word, though. If YOU noticed the problem, the other guy might have, too. It's nearly impossible to differentiate between two people using the same account on the same machine. However, Hublolly's physics is crappy. If F = q(E+vXB) went nuts for 5 days, why would he remember to misspell the same words, but forget his math? SBHarris 22:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Placing too much emphasis on second-guessing the reality/psychology probably will not achieve anything. In any event, we'd only be relying on the weak control via an IP address. My impression is that the WP project will be best served by dropping speculation, and welcoming F=q(E+v^B) on a new account (with an understanding of better control thereof) to allow continuation of what I have experienced as a generally very constructive contribution, as per Hersfold's outline. Any recurrence of something similar could of course be reacted to more immediately. — Quondum☏ 07:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Without evidence to the contrary we stick to the most straightforward explanation, the only evidence that exists suggests there were no other individual involved and it was all sockpuppetting. Creating a new account without the further clarifications would be ban evasion considering the reasonable doubts that exist with his explanation. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no ban in place, only a block (See WP:BAN, ANI discussion), I've specifically allowed account creation on the block and F=q(E+v^B) and this is the remedy suggested by Hersfold and the blocking admin has said its OK to unblock. So F=q(E+v^B) is explicitly allowed to create an account and it will not be ban or block evasion.
There is very little more we can say about whether its sockpuppetry or two editors, technical evidence says they were on the same IP, behavioral evidence is always tricky. The truth we will possibly never be 100% sure of. What we can do is be vigilant, if similar behaviour reoccurs then blocks and bans may be inorder. Hopefully the incident is now over and will not re-occur. Step 3 of the remedy "On your userpage, leave a disclaimer that you used to edit as User:F=q(E+v^B)" will make the vigilance a bit easier. --Salix (talk): 17:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fond Potential farewell...

It still seems people don't trust me and think I'm lying - assume as you may but these (and the above content) are the facts. I do not "have a vain overwhelming motivation for sympathy or attention", and would still like to contribute constructively and quietly, and do have the option to continue provided by the admins here.

Clearly others would prefer me in a prison (concentration?) camp (never mind return to WP), so I'll just leave now and allow everyone else's excellent work to continue for your own tranquility (if I was so vain for attention here on WP I'd create the new account and "show off from there", that's what you think?)...

I may create the new account (becuase some people trust me, and even seem to want me back), or may not (others do not trust - up to you), independent of other people's entitled opinions, for reasons in the unblock request above. The new account will not cause any disruption from the other person because of the commited identity.

Once again - you are welcome to delete anything I produced on your talk pages; any barnstars I gave or sections I opened etc.

All the best, thank you lots anyway,

(original) F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you quit, then the bad guys win. Negative sanctions ought to be tools to prevent future damage. If there is a way that you can edit without fear of any future take-over of your editing rights by other people, then do so. P0M (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll add, just ignore the drama above, create a new account, and continue the good work you've been doing. (And find another roommate!) ~Amatulić (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear! - DVdm (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Further, since the purpose of the new account is to get you a new password and new start, I see no reason why it can't have nearly the same name as your old account (confusion with another "editor," the usual reason for a too-similar username, not being a problem HERE). In fact, (lemonade out of lemons) here is your perfect chance to change to F = q(E+v×B), instead of the F = q(E+v^B) that you had, and where the math notation was wrong. You've since had to fix this with a complicated username signature box markup fix. Next time, that won't be as hard. But since your evil room-mate may be reading this, make sure you clear the new account with Salix or somebody (by emaling him from your present account) before you edit from it, so we can tell it's you. And place the note on your userpage that F = q(E+v×B) used to be F = q(E+v^B). Stop the drama and get going. You have physics editing to do. SBHarris 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok... I am now: z = z² + c 00:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth looking into automatic logout settings on the computers you edit from, to avoid the new account being compromised. The committed identity doesn't protect you from that; it just gives you a way to recover the account if you can convince people that it was compromised. As long as you're in a situation where you have to be in proximity to the person who did this (per your previous statement), there's a non-negligible risk of an accident like this happening again. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The settings are in place. Thanks, z = z² + c 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%3Dq(E%2Bv%5EB)/Archive_3&oldid=1079369637"