User talk:Akhilleus

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Akhilleus/archive6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six

Sockpuppet question

You handled the block of a sockpuppet I had reported last week [[1]] It went fine and all and you agreed with me. Thing is the guy seems to be nothing but persistant. I go back now and another account is making the SAME edits in the same articles as before, same style same edits. Do I open a whole new official inquire? And possibly another account which is not quite as similar but getting there but the first is mirror like in quality to the other. Ive got enough on the first it just takes quite a while to cut and paste and go back through I didn't know if I could just let you know and you take a look or what? Thanks for your time. Looking forward to your reply on my talk page. Thanks.--Xiahou 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into some real obvious evidence tonight. Ends up I seemed right the same 2 accounts you got for me earlier the guy made 2 more. I submitted it as a sockpuppet. Both new accounts have made similar and even identical edits as the old 2. Its on the open case page now. Thanks again. --Xiahou 00:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got a ton of evidence added. Linking all 4 accounts. Today though one of his got blocked for vandalism (his current one) so suddenly another account is doing the same edits (some textually identical). I tried adding it to the open case [[2]] and its not formatting right. Can you give me a hand on it. I added links to more practically and identical edits to the same articles. I don't know why this guy has it out for dead and some living celebrities. I don't think he gets NPOV and citing of articles at all. He's chalk full of controversial heresay but nothing citied its all "i read" or "I heard".

Anyway If you could give me a hand in formatting the newest sock account near the top Gibsonism. I would appreciate it. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for resolving this. I just noticed it. So per say this comes up again how did you modify it so it showed up with the original name with (2nd) after or is that what you need to do. When putting the name in just add (Number) after the name? Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's baaack. I finished up a 3rd case against him. Started a new account. Made some of the same edits already. Even with same comments. Not as many yet (still new account) all the scary similar in same articles. Thanks for your time --Xiahou 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When does disruptive editing become vandalism?

The problem is that Miaers wants to delete that dab page entirely. Since he is not getting any support, he is instead editing it in ways which seem to me to be blatant and shameless violations of the guidelines for and purposes of a disambiguation page; is this not a species of vandalism? I am getting tired of dealing with his mischief and his little nastygrams sent to everyone who challenges his take on reality. --Orange Mike 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are right; but I don't want to do something like that if I'm the only one who feels that way. --Orange Mike 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my re: on Orange Mike's page about this. Madmaxmarchhare 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with the process, Peleides? I've never done this before. --Orange Mike 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

As you were the one who bagged User:WebmasterSD as a Lee Nysted sock/meat, I was wondering about whether User:67.186.123.21 continuing to edit would be considered block evasion? That IP has, in the past, signed its comments with WebmasterSD, as in this edit]. Not sure whether that's something to follow up on or not, but I appreciate you taking a look if you have the time. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again, for dealing with the latest Nysted supporter at ANI. The level of promotional zeal is amazing in that group of editors, as is the annoyance of dealing with them. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for forgiving me of my stupidity. If I had known using another account like I did was against the rules I would not have created it in the first place.Harebag 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is Inconclusive[3]　I do not support the personal attack.　You should discontinue the personal attack, and return to the discussion. [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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 [5] (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 [6], denying comfort women (an issue both ShinjukXYZ and Necmate were active in [7][8]). 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 [9] to my talkpage after I had posed an identical one on his page [10], 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)[reply]

Here's another suspicous anon IP [11] Mackan 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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." [12][13]

Necmate: "The deleted source is returned.", "The source that the South Korea user deleted is returned." [14][15] (my bolding, of course). Mackan 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another anon ip, obvious meat/sockpuppet: [16]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Lame

I find administrators here are pretty lame. What's wrong for someone to make a wrong request? You are supposed to waste your time doing nonsense administrator's job.Miaers 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers, it seems you're unhappy with me, but I can't really make heads or tails of your complaint. What am I doing that's "lame", exactly? It's perfectly legitimate to open an RfC on a user's conduct; it's one of the steps suggested in the dispute resolution procedure. At any rate, I hope you understand that a number of people find your conduct on UW-related articles disruptive, and that if you continue on your current path, it's quite likely that you'll be blocked for personal attacks and incivility. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least, you should know what's inexpericen and what's ill faith. Miaers 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't understand that. Are you saying that you haven't acted in bad faith, but from inexperience? --Akhilleus (talk)!

Actually, I'll say Wikipedia doesn't specify that arbitration shouldn't be requested for content dispute. Well, according to your logic, anyone who are not aware of this is considered disruptive. Miaers 01:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers, I'm still not sure if I'm understanding you, but your disruption isn't limited to the request for arbitration. The basic problem is that you're unable or unwilling to recognize that the consensus is against your position, and instead of gracefully agreeing to disagree, you have insisted over and over again that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You've edit warred about this, including a number of 3RR violations, and you're now launching a number of strange personal attacks. I really think this would be a great time for you to step away from the computer for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnosis

Followup: Checkuser has identified WikiGnosis as a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz, a user indefinitely banned from the project for persistent legal intimidation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy, I saw that Checkuser result also, and indef blocked WikiGnosis as a result. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cutts

~~I have a problem with multiple anonymous users, probably socks, vandalizing Matt Cutts. Could you have a look at the history and semi-protect this article until we solve this mystery.~~ Sorry to trouble you. I'll be doing an RfA soon so I won't have to bother people for such matters. Thanks! Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things have quieted down. No need for protection. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGnosis

(copied back from User talk:Ben#WikiGnosis)

Hi Ben, I noticed that you still aren't convinced that WikiGnosis should be blocked. If you're still interested in the matter, please take a look at the contributions of User:Zibiki Wym, who was an acknowledged puppet of MyWikiBiz. If you still have questions after that, I'll try to answer them, since I'm the one who blocked WikiGnosis. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through Special:Contributions/Zibiki_Wym, including the parts about statements he felt defamed himself. Is that what you mean? But WikiGnosis didn't claim he'd been defamed, nor did he defend MyWikiBiz. He noted that some of the things said about Daniel Brandt ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") were ill-considered; if false they were libel, and if true then they were misplaced -- more fittingly reported to law enforcement for arrest and prosecution than merely typed into Wikipedia talk pages. That's a fair point. WikiGnosis also deleted WP:BLP violations from articles about individuals, a number of them Japanese; he appears to be able to read Japanese. Did MyWikiBiz ever display that skill? The topics of interest to WikiGnosis and MyWikiBiz/Zibiki_Wym don't seem to overlap, nor do their styles, as far as I can see. If I'm missing something glaringly obvious, please tell me. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While 38-year old MyWikiBiz lives in Pennsylvania, WikiGnosis uploaded his own photo of the golf course at The Villages, "a 55+ retirement community in central Florida", which fits his "1950's Midwestern upbringing". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One point, though: I don't see that WikiGnosis has ever claimed to live in Florida, where are you getting that from?" -- He didn't "claim" anything about where he lives. But look at his fourth and fifth contribs. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medule

I am complaing since you really accused me that I am Serboman what is not case. I appeal once more to investigate that better. You or somebody has made realy bad checkuser verification. I have used sockets last year when I was punished in April 2006. But not now. Please make better checking. If you find time to make additional check I will be grateful and will impose block to myself in duration of 10 days. For ten days I will not touch any article, just to make my name clear. Otherwise everybody will accuse me that I am using sockets what is not case.--Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you or anybody else make once more checkuser verification. I want to be cleared of accusation of using sockets. Since you accussed me of using sockets recently. --Medule 09:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What What (In the Butt)

It's not appropriate to speedy delete an article that survived afd [17], as far as I know.Chunky Rice 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. The article was trimmed back to nothing by an editor who didn't think much of the article. To avoid edit warring, a couple others have committed to re-writing instead of just reverting.Chunky Rice 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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よ! 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

archived bot Werdnabot

you and i both talk pages are archived by this bot could you look at my talk page and make sure i am doing it right thanksOo7565 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [18]; it's a personal attack, and if you continue with such remarks, you may be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

SlimVirgin deleted the note you left on her talk page [19] and then archived her talk page [20]. Tiamut 20:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]