Jump to content

User talk:Frankish 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Frankish 101, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 21:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 21:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Frankish 101 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobus van Eynde

[edit]

Thank you for giving us Jacobus van Eynde! - Please make an entry on the article talk page that this is a translated article, for attribution to its original authors, best by using {{translated}}. - Please don't use direct links into the Dutch Wikipedia, - we have a good concept called interlanguage links, or {{ill}}. I changed two, one easy (where target article in English and Dutch and also the display are all the same) and another where they are all different. I trust that you can find them and change the other links accordingly. - That's it for now ) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your message! Regarding the interlanguage links: ok, no problem. As for the attribution: I mentioned that the page is translated and linked to the original article in the history, is that enough or I still have to add the translate template on the talk page?--Frankish 101 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from one or more pages to Vereniging van Schouwburg- en Concertgebouwdirecties. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk pages of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, please add attribution retrospectively for that also, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Okay, no problem.--Frankish 101 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurya Khan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 How is it possible to appeal for this block? Frankish 101 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Frankish 101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not abused multiple accounts, and I don't like to be associated with sockpuppetry.

Decline reason:

What is the relationship between this account and User:Giray Altay? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Frankish 101 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:jpgordon, all I can say, for privacy and security reasons, is that there is no instance of sockpuppetry here, and that me and Giray are not the same. And if you look at the edit comparison in the sockpuppetry investigation there is nothing to suggest any illegitimate reason even if me and Giray were the same person.

P.S: I replied here because I wasn't allowed to reply in the unblock request, should I open another one?--Frankish 101 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And of course I am not Kurya Khan either. Like I said, I am not abusing multiple accounts. Frankish 101 (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Frankish 101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I asked if I should open a new unblock request, as the other was closed, and though the reason for declining was in fact a question by the admin, I was not able to reply within that request (the program didn't allow me to do so), and the admin did not reply to my questions regarding further action outside of the unblock request. So here I am again. I was blocked for allegedly abusing multiple accounts, i.e. sockpuppetry. Like I stated in the previous request, this is not the case. What I ask is, where is the misleading, deception, disruption, or undermining of consensus (as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts) that a Giray Altay+Frankish 101 activity'd carried out? On closer look at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurya Khan, I saw that Giray Altay was said to be User:Kurya Khan first, then User:Crovata, as there was allegedly overlap between their edits, topics, ideas, etc. My name was linked to Giray Altay after a technical check that was otherwise negative for all the other allegations against Giray Altai. After this technical evidence emerged, it was immediately assumed that I am a sock master/sock, even though there is no overlap between my edits and those of Giray Altai. This was indeed seen by User:Bbb23 (an admin), who stated I took a look at the two accounts, and I was surprised to find that there was zero article intersection between the two accounts, and that even their topic areas were quite different [...] Nor did I see the kind of aggression exhibited by Giray when using the Frankish account. Then another editor, User:Ermenrich, provided a list of diffs supposedly proving overlap, but IMHO these diffs don't show anything that the technical evidence wouldn't already imply, such as that one user edited when the other didn't. Then there are other questionable points used to "prove" overlap, such as interest in other historical personages, with reference to my edits on Richardis of Bavaria and Giray Altay's edits on Dávid Baróti Szabó, but I guess editing on historical figures is the most common practice among Wikipedians. Maybe there is an innuendo that both edited on Catholicism-related articles? (as out of many edits I made on historical figures, they picked a Catholicism-related one, as they did with Giray Altay) But why not stating it clearly? Regardless, IMHO, it is still not enough to prove overlap, and other alleged similarities like editing on "pop musicians" also don't hold water. This is just my opinion of course. Even if one wanted to believe that the two users are the same person, for sockpuppetry you would need an illegitimate reason to operate two accounts (as stated here, for which read this), that is, violating Wikipedia's policy, and without forgetting that my name was associated with Giray by chance, I ask: what would this illegitimate reason be in this case? I am sure I never argued pro (nor against for that matter) Giray Altai, and as Bb23 noticed, there is zero overlap, and indeed I am pretty sure we never even edited on the same page. The technical evidence is correct, no doubt. However, I repeat that there is no sockpuppetry here, and it's not fair that my reputation is ruined and I am blocked from editing because of this mistake. Frankish 101 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

Since talk page access has been revoked there is no point keeping this open. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • Your unblock request has to be one of the more legalistic double-talk "defenses" I've seen, and I've seen many. OTOH, you appear to say that you operate both accounts but that they are (undeclared) legitimate alternative accounts because in your view they weren't disruptive in various ways that would make them socks. OTOH, you appear to deny that you operate both accounts but imply that, regardless, there is some relationship between the two but you won't say what it is for "privacy" reasons. You are never going to be permitted to edit again on Wikipedia unless you are honest. Regardless of the compartmentalization of the two accounts, it is not necessary that they edit the same pages to be socks. Even if the Frankish account behaved "perfectly", only one account needs to be disruptive to constitute socking, and the Giray account was very disruptive. See WP:GHBH.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 I don't understand all your remarks. It is maybe better if you ask me direct questions. I have not said anything except that I am not a sock and have not used socks. You have technical evidence linking Giray Altay to me, which emerged by chance. I don't want (and I don't think I have to?) explain why this technical evidence resulted, because of privacy and security concerns. All I can safely say is that there is no instance of sockpuppetry.
I don't want to be associated with Giray Altay's activity in any way, and I don't mean to take their defences. But I will say a few words to answer what you said here: only one account needs to be disruptive to constitute socking, and to argue that the judgement at the sockpuppet investigation was rash, even if you believed we are the same person. Giray Altai was blocked here for 1 week. Looking at their and yours activities, it seems the cause was their allegedly aggressive behavior at an ANI case you closed here (I call it aggressive because you mentioned "aggression" here), a case that was not started because of disruptive behavior in the project, and as far as I know there have not been any ANI cases (pun not intended) for disruptive behavior in the project against them. It looks like they weren't disruptive in the project, but appear to have been blocked because of escalations at the named ANI case (so, I don't agree with your general statement that they were very disruptive).
Sockpuppetry means creating/operating multiple accounts for disruptive purposes (or that's what I take from this). But even if you believe we are the same person, it is clear, IMHO, that the accounts were not created/operated for disruptive purposes, since there is no overlap, and Giray was disruptive in an ANI argument, apparently not started by them.

I agree that honesty is important. But I am wrongly accused of sockpuppetry, and I cannot say anything else. Was there sockpuppetry going on here, it would be easier for me to just walk away. But I don't like to be associated with the other user's activity, and I don't like to be falsely accused. Other admins may let me know if they have , hopefully direct, questions, and I will answer them to the best of my capacities.--Frankish 101 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • correction: in the diff I provided you actually stated the reason for the block as their "inability to edit collaboratively, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT"; as the block came right after the argument, and their behavior and editing appears to have been normal until then, I keep assuming the cause is indeed rooted in that argument.
Regarding the WP:GHBH, just like I said: even if you want to assume we are the same (there is technical evidence that may be interpreted this way), objectively, Giray Altai does not appear to be a vandal, and their edits aren't disruptive. Their alleged disruption came during escalations in an ANI argument that was not started by them (but by the same user who incorrectly associated them with other alleged sock-puppetry suspects here).
IMHO, one thing is behavior, etiquette, a disagreement, a legitimate or illegitimate enraging in an argument, and one thing is editing, contributions to the project.
Furthermore: WP:GHBH requires an account to be created and operated for the purpose of disruption/vandalism, but Giray Altai's alleged disruption would be their behavior in an ANI argument which they haven't started themselves, so how could they have planned the disruption? Their edits and behavior up to their clash with the other user were fine, and they don't appear to have been flagged for vandalism, etc. Frankish 101 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While reading your reply over, and also your comments at the sockpuppetry investigation, I noticed you repeated twice that my conduct was "perfect". I have however never participated in any discussions, so there is not much to judge. I don't know how I would react if I was accused of SPA, as Giray Altay was, and I hadn't done it (I can say, though, that being falsely accused of sockpuppetry while on vacation does not feel very nice). It is common for tempers to flare up in an argument. You yourself apparently thought that all can make mistakes while arguing, and that not only Giray Altai was at fault, as in the ANI discussion conclusion you stated That doesn't mean that I necessarily think that Ermenrich and Borsoka are blameless.
What I am trying to say, is that Giray Altai's conduct and edits have nothing suggesting of a planned disruptive account, as WP:GHBH implies. Rather, they had an impulsive reaction in an unplanned argument, as could have happened to me, and probably most editors.
Also, Wikipedia's WP:GHBH requires that one account be used for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing. However, both me and Giray Altay edited constructively.
IMHO, this only goes to show that the sockpuppet investigation was conducted hastily and a decision taken too rashly, as even if you want to interpret the technical evidence as meaning Giray and me are the same, there is no suggestion of illegitimate reason. Frankish 101 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While reading your reply over, and also your comments at the sockpuppetry investigation, I noticed you repeated twice that my conduct was "perfect". I never said your conduct was perfect, either here or at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, you said: Even if the Frankish account behaved "perfectly", only one account needs to be disruptive to constitute socking. I am not an English ns, but, according to the Oxford dictionary, conduct is the manner in which a person behaves.
Looking at that sentence again, I notice that you put perfect is in quotation marks. However, you didn't use the conditional verb, and I think that the sentence would have had to be: "Even if the Frankish account had behaved perfectly". So, you did say it...
I don't know why the quotations marks. Maybe you wanted to say that I behaved quite well but the word perfect was "too much"? Or maybe even if should not be understood as despite the fact that but as despite the possibility that. Anyway, it would still mean that you think I behaved good, or that you consider it possible. I think the former because at SPI you stated Nor did I see the kind of aggression exhibited by Giray when using the Frankish account.
  • But you are right about the SPI, mea culpa. You didn't use perfect there, only implied that I behaved better than Giray Altay.
My remark still applies even if we don't want to use the word perfect, though: when assessing the implied dichotomy between the conduct of mine and Giray Altay's (or the aggressive/non-aggressive behaviors), one should consider the fact that I was never accused of anything, neither at ANI nor at any other places, nor got into any discussion. Frankish 101 (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Dirk0001 and Flishflosh23 also your accounts? --Blablubbs (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, those are mine. I created them because I don't like to edit with an IP. I am a privacy-maniac. Way too risky for me. I created the first account and when I thought I had finished, deleted the password on purpose. Then I had still something to do, and created the other account. Then created this. Frankish 101 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So now we have four accounts you've used. Any others?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, Please, don't associate Giray Altay with me, as I asked, thank you!
    There are a few others. I don't even remember the username. Purpose was the same. None was created for illegitimate reasons. All this is causing more concern for me, and defeating the purpose of protecting privacy and increasing security.
    P.S. Why have you blocked User talk:Flishflosh23 and User talk:Dirk0001 for sockpuppetry, when I implied there was no illegitimate reason for their creation? Where are the sockpuppetry investigations? Do you understand that sockpuppetry requires an illegitimate reason for account creation? You could've connected those accounts to this one instead. Frankish 101 (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now seen that the investigation is included in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frankish 101.
    But the rest still applies: why have you decided it is sockpuppetry? So quickly? You judged this. You are the same user who judged in the other investigation involving Giray Altay and later me, as well as in the ANI arguments involving Giray Altai, whom you suppose is me. So, if you had misjudged, or developed a prejudice, in the beginning, you would be multiplying your mistakes now. Yet you keep deciding alone... Frankish 101 (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we associate User:Giray Altay with this account? The two accounts logged in on the same IP, within a minute or two of each other, going back and forth between the two accounts, on more than one occasion, on more than one IP. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:jpgordon, it depends on what you mean by associate. I never disputed the technical evidence. On the other hand, I refuse to precise the nature of the relationship citing privacy and security concerns, while also maintaining that I have never perpetuated sockpuppetry.
I know that, from you perspective, the technical evidence may be interpreted only in one way. I however argue that, even if you want to believe me and GA are one, uncaring about my statements and pleas for privacy, there is no suggestion of an illegitimate reason for the creation of that account. With this I also intend to show that the sockpuppetry investigation (started, for the record, under unfounded suspicions, following an apparently unfounded accusation of SPA against GA at ANI; with both the ANI case and sock investigation ending up showing that the accuser(s) held wrong beliefs), which wound up involving me, was carried out too rashly, just as the judgement of Dirk001 and Flish Flosh (admittedly my own creations, created for privacy concerns) as socks was pronounced.
WP:GHBH (as proposed by BB23), IMHO, does not hold water because: you need one account not to be constructive, which is not the case here, since both me an GA were constructive. You would need disruptive editing, which GA didn't carry out in the project. GA was blocked after escalations in an argument and their behavior there. Even if you consider that disruptive editing (the "bad" side, or hand), you would need the "good" hand too (GH/BH). However, I was never involved in any argument, so for me you don't have neither good nor bad. Also, how could GA/"me" know that they would be involved in the argument which caused their reprimand and block? They couldn't, so there couldn't be premeditation either. Frankish 101 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeated the same baseless drivel for quite enough time. I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frankish_101&oldid=1130022655"