User talk:AKMask/Archive 3

Greetings from Australia

Hi. Noticed you were a fellow libertarian Mac user. I also notice you support preferential voting (or "instant runoff", as you call it). I can assure you mate, preferential is absolutely the way to go. Joestella 19:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

I just blanked User:AKMask/log for you because posting IRC logs is against Freenet rules and may get you banned. I'm technically doing a favor for you, and just letting you know why I did that. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't know and was tryin' to help ya. Why do you want to keep that page anyways? It looks like a crapload of spam. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 05:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson DUI Incident

Hello! I was reviewing the talk page discussion and the contribution history for the Mel Gibson DUI incident article and I notice that you made a proposal back in August to have the off shoot article merged back into Mel Gibson's biography. I wonder if that is not a proposal worth revisting at this juncture now that this incident is no longer a current event? Some editors argued its status as a current event as their rationale, and indicated a willingness to revisit the article's status at a later date.

Currently, there is a heated AFD debate regarding the newly created Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident article. The creator of this article is justifying the spin off, based upon the existence of the Mel Gibson DUI incident as a precedent. I'm inclined to think that spin off articles of this type are inappropriate content Wikipedia because they become platforms for excessive defamatory material about living people. If Winona Ryder's shoplifting arrest and trial doesn't warrant its own article, none of them do. I am interested in hearing your thoughts and I am wondering if you think it may be an appropriate time for the Mel Gibson merger to be reconsidered. Regards! Cleo123 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you message. You have a very good point about navigation issues. Have you ever tried to read the O.J. Simpson/Nicole Brown Murder coverage? There are so many articles that a chart is required! LOL

Yes, I would like to work towards getting the DUI incident merged back into the main article. I've only been on Wikipedia a few months, however, and I don't know how to nominate a merger, from a technical perspective. Can you help me out with that? Cleo123 06:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images in signatures

Hello. I noticed that you use an image in your signature. The guideline WP:SIG#Images says that images should not be used in signatures and gives a few reasons why. Please change your signature to meet that guideline. Thanks in advance! Wodup 08:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you started using the signature while images were discouraged, but not to be avoided. That's fine. I do thank you for getting back to me about it. Cheers! Wodup 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Thank you! That's what I wanted to hear. A reason and an explaination. I'm glad I finally found someone to tell me the specific reasons rather than criticizing me for my actions and telling me the consequences. Thanks for clearing that up. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/MP8

I posted a response to your comment on the MP8 AfD. Please retract your vote, as it is unsound. McKay 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Meatpuppetry

I was not recruited by anyone onto Wikipedia. This is outright discrimination against us. we are two people with the same opinion and we deserve to be teated this way. I have not been bribed or forced into helping Henchman. It's just that there was never a need to remove the minigame lists. We are two people, not one. We are not getting our proper rights on Wikipedia! This needs to stop! Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read Isotope's updated verdict (pay attention to the bold areas):

Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets. Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions. If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine. As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because "soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community". That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion. It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs. Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented.

See? You have it all wrong. This is no "textbook case of meatpuppetry". Please do not continue to suggest that it is. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they were probably not puppets. is a key part of it. Probably doesn't mean "no they aren't puppets". Changing words around (or ignoring them) isn't how things work. RobJ1981 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me! You said it can be assumed we are one person, but it can't! In fact, it is PROVEN that we aren't one person. Please read what Llama man said again about not assuming. Thank you. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 15:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets. Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions. If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine. As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because "soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community". That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion. It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs. Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented.

There, I fixed your highlighting Bowsy. -M^ask

19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XM/Sirius merger

Regarding the current news section of the article: I have posted a comment on the talk page. I would appreciate if you would air your concerns there, rather than simply delete an important section of the article. I placed the news section at the top so that it would be visible, and so anyone interested could quickly get updated information about what's going on.

If you feel this is inappropriate, I invite you to discuss it on the talk page. I have also opened an RfC. Now that the article is under RfC, deleting the section again would be against WP policy. Please come talk to me about it on Talk:XM/Sirius_merger#Current_events and get this straightened out.

Thank you.

-- TomXP411^[Talk] 06:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the re-write. Great job! -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MP8AfD

In your last comment, who were "the two meatpuppets above"? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about myself and Henchman, quit it! We are not meatpuppets and this "meatpuppetry" on the AfD is nothing more than a harassment. Please read the comment I left towards the top of the Afd entitled comment to closing admin and the outside view in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Henchman 2000 Thank You. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AKMask: In my opinion, a new sockpuppet case (concerning meatpuppetry) about them needs to be made. Look at the their recent edits: alot of the edits are them trying to get the AFD discussions in their favor. As well as this: User_talk:Mckaysalisbury#Another_AfD_for_mini_game_lists. Them begging another to go to the AFD and vote in their favor. RobJ1981 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000 (2nd) feel free to comment if you want. RobJ1981 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject updates

I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Henchman/Bowsy

I agree, it doesn't look good... but I'm not going to make a huge deal out of it. Is it annoying that they repeatedly do it after they were cautioned not to? Yup. But I have yet to see one instance where this sort of "get out the !vote" effort has actually impacted anything. If it starts actually impacting outcomes, then I'd be a lot more concerned.--Isotope23 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Earl Salisbury

Thanks for the kind words. What do you think could be change to best fit the rewrite mentioned? McKay 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image in Signature

Please remove the flag from your signature as per WP:SIG "Images of any kind shall not be used in signatures.", Thanks --Dacium 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there! It's best not to strike out comments without fully knowing what you're doing. As is plainly clear on the RFCU, the user was unblocked prior to the RFCU beginning and after participating on his primary username, he utilised a sock by referring to himself in the third person and advocating for his name to be kept. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what I was doing. The fact that he used the exact same signature (which is a unique one) shows fairly plainly that he wasn't trying to fool anyone. -M^ask

21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you do. Skewing consensus by means of sockpuppetry is a very serious matter, and obvious or not, the user still engaged in that practise. That it was obvious shows a further disregard to the community gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished putting together a fairly decent investigation of a couple sockpuppets not an hour ago. Look for yourself, its at User:AKMask/puppets The fact that there was no real sockpuppetry here seems to through out any possibility of there needing a disclaimer. First of all, before viewing the source, the 2 accounts appear to be the same. Same name shown. Second of all, at worst its as bad as those idiots who put Delete or Keep in front of every comment they make. Look at the situation as the closing admin would see it. Say user Bob votes for something, and then for reasons unknown and seemingly complicated, shows up as bob2 but still signs as Bob. No ones fooled, theres no puppetry cause hes not trying to passhimself off as someone else, hes identifying with the first account. I trust whoever closes not to be retard when reading the discussion. -M^ask

21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I still don't think you understand what I'm getting at. A sockpuppet does not need to be covert; in fact, lots of sockpuppets are quite obvious. This is a clear-cut situation of sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure what you don't understand about this. I'm happy to work with you further, but please take a look at WP:SOCK. I've highlighted a passage that might be of relevance, so you don't have to spend your valuable time going through the whole thing:

Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion (vote fraud). Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages.

Hope this helps. Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the policy many-a-time. What you seem to fail to get is he never got more then one vote. He reiterated his posistion, generally frowned upon when you bold the opinion again, but he still only got one vote. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask :) -M^ask

21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I appreciate your offer to clarify, but again, you've missed the point. Please take another look at the RFCU and I'm sure you'll see what I mean gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RFCU isn't a vote, but a discussion, which is another reason why it's important not to misrepresent oneself gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if I can further clarify my posistion. I wont strike out your comment, but we may just have to agree to disagree on this, I just dont see it as an attempt to skew consensus. Perhaps he thought the old name would be hosed and this was going to be his new one, maybe he honestly thought he was blocked. I dont know, but I do know that if it was an attempt to skew consensus, it was roughly on par with the skill that the 3 Stooges would have attempting the same thing :) -M^ask

21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<---- I'm not sure if we're in disagreement; it seems as though we simply aren't communicating as well as we'd like to ( the perils of trying to carry on a conversation on a talk page, I suppose :) ). The user in question, User:Fenian Swine, begun his participation on the RFCU as so:

Strong Allow. It would be nonsense to block the name of someone who contributes well towards this site. Whether you perceive me to be anything is just your own personal opinion, it means nothing. Should you chose to block the name, you will be losing a worthwhile member over something as silly as political correctness.--Play Brian Moore 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He then utilised his sockpuppet, Swenian Fine, to skew consensus by adovocating that he be allowed to keep his original user name as so:

Strong Allow. It's a bit late for this debate ladies and gentlemen. Swine is not offensive at all. The user is a Fenian, henceforth if there is any sense left in this place, it will be allowed.--Play Brian Moore 20:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Twenty minutes later, he logged on to this sockpuppet account to attempt to skew consensus. It's clear that he was not just mistaken, as he refers to himself in the third person, therefore assuming the position that he is an independent user. I agree completely that his naming and signature choice for this sock was incredibly daft, but nonetheless it is a sock and he did attempt to skew the consensus. I mentioned that the sock was disallowed from participating and he has commented several times since without acknowledging so. As such, it's necessary to note, quite clearly, that the user utilised a sock during this discussion gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then note that, I'll note as well that there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to support the accusation, WP:AGF and such, and the closing admin can make up his mind. -M^ask

22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I have noted it, and with regards to good faith, I'm not sure how you could think that they are two different users, as he's actually stated that they are one in the same. You need to start looking more closely at things before commenting on them mate ;) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think they're different users, I think they're the same, what I do is assume the good faith that it wasn't an attempt to skew consensus. From WP:SOCK: "sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists." He did not do this because it seems somewhat obvious that there was no intent at deception. Regardless of his !votes, it seems that theres enough support on both sides that this will end in a no consensus of some sort. -M^ask

22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]