:I already explained to ROUX that it was not a personal attack, but a comment on his actions. Paranoia is the "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others" and he is making an RfC off of fears of what might happen based on nothing but his personal feelings towards me. That is preemptive, baseless and paranoid, to be worried about what might be instead of what was. A personal attack would be calling someone insane, or crazy, or a liar or the other slew of things ROUX seemed to have forgotten to mention were said of me by editors. I suppose that it would not help his cause to point out what was said against me, though. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Xanderliptak|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''[talk]'''</span>]] [[User:Xanderliptak|<span style="color:black">XANDERLIPTAK</span>]]</span> 01:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:47, 25 October 2010
Or: The War Room
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Just to let you know, I still stand by the block. Compare his latest unblock request [1] with [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]. Or am I to believe everybody posts talk page requests in choppy paragraphs like that? If you still disagree, then please take the issue to WP:AN. –MuZemike23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Megaidler is alleged to be a sock of Golan heights is our, who is alleged to be a sock Dajudem, who is alleged to be a sock of stellarkid. Dajudem and stellarkid’s writing styles differ markedly from Megaidler. It is evident that Megaidler is not a native English speaker whereas Dajudem and stellarkid write quite well. That aside, Megaidler’s last substantive edit occurred on 6 August 2010. Since that period, Megaidler’s account has since been inactive with no contributions. Socks are created to circumvent a block, ban, 1R or 3R restriction. Even if Megaidler created another account, (which I don’t believe he has) how has he violated any Wikipedia rule? To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not disallow creation of a second account provided that that second account does not have a nefarious purpose. In what malevolent way has Megaidler abused multiple accounts? In what way has Megaidler used or abused a second account to circumvent a ban, block, 1R or 3R restriction? I urge you to consider these arguments and to reconsider or at least review your block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike, I think what Jiujitsuguy is trying to say is that Golan heights is our does not look to be a sock of Dajudem, based on the style of writing of each user. Eagles24/7(C)02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eagles247, I did not block User:Golan heights is our, or am I now responsible for that account now as indicated? It is unreasonable to demand that an admin double-check every previous sock and make sure they are before blocking a new sock. By the way, thanks for letting me know now about this, just as the User:Golan heights is our account became completely stale so that CUs cannot possibly make any new comparisons.
Thank you MuZe. That is an excellent idea. I have already commented on his page. Hopefully, he will respond and we can get to the bottom of this in a fair and equitable manner.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I have pieced this thing together. 87.68.213.255 edited Golan Heights (here). Another user reverted him, then 87.68.213.255 came back as 84.228.155.248 and reverted the other user. (here). User:Nableezy came over and reverted this IP, calling him a "block evading troll" (here), even though the previous IP address was never blocked. 84.228.155.248 was then blocked for 48 hours by User:Malik Shabazz. While blocked, he posted a few unblock requests, then created an account (User:Golan heights is our) and posted another unblock request on the IP talk page. Golan heights is our was blocked indefinitely for block evasion, then Golan heights is not occupied was created and also indefinitely blocked for block evasion. Golan heights is our, Golan heights is not occupied and User:Megaidler are all the same user, but not banned user Dajudem. Eagles24/7(C)03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That offers some clarification but why is Megaidler lumped in when his interests are primarily focused on the Yom Kippur war and he never exhibited any sock tendencies there despite heated exchanges and relentless reverts by all concerned. One would think that he would have exhibited similar behavior in the Yom Kippur war, where he edited much more frequently. He makes a couple of edits to the Golan Heights and suddenly resorts to socking? It just doesn't make sense--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is at best, a tangential relationship between the articles but Megaidler's edits there were focused mainly on statistical data such as casualties, aircraft losses, tank losses etc... See for example[11]. Megaidler is a dry statistics guy and nothing more. It really is a shame if the wrong guy was blocked and I think that is precisely what happened here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Megaidler is not a sock of banned user Dajudem, then by MuZemike's own reasoning, there is no reason to permanently block him. See [14]. MuZemike said he blocked Megaider because he thought he was Dajudem but that reasoning no longer holds true based on what Malik said. I think that based on that comment, Megaidar's block should be lifted forthwith.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The CU said Megaidler and Golan heights is our, had: "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints." and another CU said likely that Stellarkid = Golan heights is our. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a sock of anyone. He could have edited under his own account without any problem. He didn't have to create new accounts to edit. His account was in good standing. But that is beside the point. MuZemike said he blocked him because he thought he was a sock of banned User:Dajudem[[15]] and that has proven not to be the case[16]. I would like to get MuZemike's perspective on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a CU connection ("likely") between Golan heights is our (talk·contribs) and Stellarkid (talk·contribs) (who is blocked as a sock of Dajudem), see here. If Megaidler (talk·contribs) is the same as Golan heights is our (talk·contribs) it follows the user is a sock of Dajudem. I personally doubt that Megaidler is the same as the other users, but I dont have a CU bit. Simple answer here is to run a CU against Megaidler instead of blocking based on WP:DUCK. A comparison could then be made against Stellarkid (whose edits on commons could be checked to compare with by a a CU here who has the bit there as well) or with the other socks. nableezy - 03:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Nableezy points out, there is enough doubt here to run a CU. Second my original point still stands. MuZemike said he blocked Megaider because he thought he was a sock of banned User:Dajudem[[17]] and as Malik stated, that has proven not to be the case[18]. At the very least, the block against Megaider should be temporarily lifted while a CU is performed. I would also like to thank Nableezy for putting aside our differences and placing Wikipedia's interests and the interests of fairness first.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has been proven that Golan heights is our is a sock of a banned editor, see the diff I provided above. I have my own reasons for doubting that Golan heights is our=Megaidler, but Golan heights is our=Stellarkid=Dajudem has been established by CU. If Megaidler=Golan heights is our, as the user is blocked for being, then Megaidler=the rest. But I dont think the line breaks are enough to block based on WP:DUCK, and I dont think the behavioral evidence at the SPI is enough. nableezy - 04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Malik Shabazz blocked Golan heights is our prior to the CU establishing the user was connected to Stellarkid. But it has since been established (at least "likely") that Golan heights is our is the same user as Stellarkid. SD then, after the CU finding, added the sock tag on the userpage. The important thing here is whether or not Megaidler is the same user as Golan heights is our; if they are the same user, as the user is currently blocked for, then thats the end of the story. The argument you are making, that even if Megaidler also operated the Golan heights is our account the user is not a sock of a banned editor, is false. You need to focus on showing that Megaidler is not the same as Golan heights is our. If you would like more advice on how to proceed you can politely ask me on my talk page. nableezy - 04:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per my discussion with Nableezy on his Talk page [20], the best course of action would be to run a CU on User:Megaidler. I also believe, as I have stated before, that his block should be temporarily lifted pending the outcome of the CU. No one is prejudiced by doing so--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I thought Megaidler was Golan heights is our is because the Megaidler account said that IP comments were from him:[21], these IP posts were identical to the posts of Golan heights is our, Golan heights is not occupied and Improvisealot123. Posts from the Megaidler account are also similar to Golan heights is our:[22][[23]] There has already been a CU for Megaidler:[24] "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints.". The other accounts are confirmed or likely: [25]"Confirmed Improvisealot123 = FLWalker = user:Stellarkid (note: tagged as related to user:Dajudem & user:Tundrabuggy but I'm not familiar with that), and Likely that user:Golan heights is our = user:Golan heights is not occupied and that they are the same as Stellarkid, but I've run out of pixie dust." So Stellarkid = Golan heights is our = Golan heights is not occupied = Likely, and Megaidler = Golan heights is our = "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints.", and this is only the CU, not considering the behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike, I think that there is a fair degree of uncertainty here to justify a shortening, or full reversal of the block. The ball is now in your court. I really don't want to take this to WP:AN because, well, I'll admit that I'm a lazy SOB and pressed for time in the real world and I don't have much of a vested interest either way. I just think the poor fella got a bum rap--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking at this, but I need to remind everyone that all previous accounts are now Stale, which I mentioned yesterday; CU will not be able to go back that far and determine via technical evidence that socking has occurred. –MuZemike22:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike you may recall this conversation between you and I:
Megaidler is alleged to be a sock of Golan heights is our, who is alleged to be a sock Dajudem, who is alleged to be a sock of stellarkid. Dajudem and stellarkid’s writing styles differ markedly from Megaidler. It is evident that Megaidler is not a native English speaker whereas Dajudem and stellarkid write quite well. That aside, Megaidler’s last substantive edit occurred on 6 August 2010. Since that period, Megaidler’s account has since been inactive with no contributions. Socks are created to circumvent a block, ban, 1R or 3R restriction. Even if Megaidler created another account, (which I don’t believe he has) how has he violated any Wikipedia rule? To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not disallow creation of a second account provided that that second account does not have a nefarious purpose. In what malevolent way has Megaidler abused multiple accounts? In what way has Megaidler used or abused a second account to circumvent a ban, block, 1R or 3R restriction? I urge you to consider these arguments and to reconsider or at least review your block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, you were under the wrong impression that Malik blocked User:Megaidler as a sock of Golan heights is our who in turn was a sock of banned user User:Dajudem. Malik has now clarified that is not the case as evidenced below:
OK, I went ahead and unblocked, given the recommendations and views of several others. It doesn't look like we were very sure about the block even back then. –MuZemike01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MuZemike. Can you please notify him on his Talk page so he's aware of his unblock. Thanks again for your patience and taking the time to review the case--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Sebastian, would you appreciate it if somebody attempted to make a public connection as to where you live via a connection to an IP address you may have used? Because that is what you are asking, and neither I nor any CU will not do that let alone publicly disclose such CU results on-wiki as that is tantamount to outing someone. –MuZemike22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't appreciate that, but that isn't what I was seeking to do, and I am flabbergasted that you (or others, apparently) would even consider that I was seeking to do so.
The definition of disruptive sockpuppetry is using another account to support another of your accounts. When I noticed an IP address supporting the viewpoint of a registered user, I didn't cry foul and run full-tilt to RfCU; I went to their page and asked them if they indeed had simply failed to log in or whatnot. They said it wasn't them, not once but twice. Now, good faith is a great guideline, but two editors from within 35 miles of each other backing each others' play shouldn't get overlooked simply because you wish it not to be sockpuppetry.
Since the user said the IP edits weren't theirs, how was I seeking to connect them publicly? If the user was telling the truth, no connection would be found. If the user being untruthful, then the only way to verify the socking is via RfCU. Tell me how I am wrong here, bc I seriously don't know why you are considering my viewpoint to be wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have to possibly gain from persisting all of this? It seems like you are trying to get somebody blocked punitively (yes, such a block would be punitive, not preventative). And now you come back 3 weeks later and pushing the same issue? You seem to be acting more on principle than what the reality of the situation is. Let it go, please. –MuZemike16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Focus, please; this isn't about any user - at all. I am stating that I am unclear as to the idea of checkuser as it pertains to sockpuppetry. I repeat again, as people seem to keep missing this bit: I am not pursuing anyone with this line of inquiry. I am asking where we draw the line at editing from multiple accounts. The user says the account wasn't theirs. Therefore, doing a checkuser would have either explosed no connection whatsoever, or would have exposed the user as a liar. What is the litmus for conducting checkuser - that's my question here. I am seeking some knowledge, not retribution.
And lastly, the reason I am here three weeks later is that I was polite enough to wait for Bsadowski to get off his rump to write a reply. I figured I had waited enough time for a response and asked someone else.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. Doesn't look like there is anything else when looking at Special:WhatLinksHere].
I do apologize for that move. I should have exercised some more hindsight, knowing that this was a rather major naming change (why "NPR" decided to do this to themselves, I don't know). –MuZemike05:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rbj hardblock
Hardblocked sounds as if it might be something that works. If so, many thanks, pardon my earlier scepticism and - can you direct me to info about what a hardblock means? Thanks McZeus (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's prejudicial to the discussion to have the subpage called "TreasuryTag", when as much, or more, of the discussion deals with my actions as it does with his. Might I suggest moving it to "TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan", or "TreasuryTag civility block"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MuZemike--do you mind explaining the long block for 66.56.82.93, or the special circumstances for it? I remember what they wrote; no need to repeat that. ;) Drmies (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No no, not at all--I was wondering what was so bad about it; I've seen worse, I think, though not on a weekly basis. Was it the amount of obscenity, or does 'open proxy' also mean that there's more to this than meets the eye? Let's just say that you just became a part-time possible future admin coach, if you don't mind! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks! You know what, it's time to close up shop for tonight. Thanks again, also for blocking that gentle person so quickly, Drmies (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible NPA, your help needed fairly quickly please
Hi. As far as I know we have never interacted in any significant manner. You are the last admin edit that I currently see on my watchlist.
User:Xanderliptak has made a blatant personal attack here. I have asked him twice to redact it, he has not. Lest this be seen as favouritism in any way, please note I have also asked Fry1989 to redact the personal attacks he made against Xanderliptak.
I already explained to ROUX that it was not a personal attack, but a comment on his actions. Paranoia is the "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others" and he is making an RfC off of fears of what might happen based on nothing but his personal feelings towards me. That is preemptive, baseless and paranoid, to be worried about what might be instead of what was. A personal attack would be calling someone insane, or crazy, or a liar or the other slew of things ROUX seemed to have forgotten to mention were said of me by editors. I suppose that it would not help his cause to point out what was said against me, though. [talk]XANDERLIPTAK01:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
