Jump to content

User talk:Akuri

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

Welcome!

[edit]
Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Akuri! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sue Rangell and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – Sue Rangell (talk)

Hey there

[edit]

I am glad you finally got to register an account. With regards to your comment about going to arbitration, you should consider spending time editing articles. Especially, you should try to broaden your editing activities beyond race and intelligence. Arbitrators are not likely to look kindly on you for filing a request under these circumstances regarding this subject given your minimal editing history and it is also better if your become more familiar with the processes before you would attempt anything.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to broaden my editing, but I have very little time to spend at Wikipedia, and I think race and intelligence articles need me the most. Just a few days ago someone added obvious original synthesis in the race and intelligence article, and other editors agreed it was original synthesis, but nobody else cared enough to remove it. It would have stayed there for good if I hadn't removed it. (I had to wait until I was registered four days first.) Another reason it's demanding for me is that you and BlackHades don't participate in the articles anymore, which means there is nobody except me who cares about fixing these problems.
I also think that improving the article's content problems, like restoring the the removed sections about brain size and evolutionary theories, might not be possible until some of the conduct problems are dealt with first. Conduct problems include the strategy we've seen of removing content faster than it can be discussed, and also how little it takes for editors like us to get blocked or sanctioned. I don't know what you did to get a one-way interaction ban with Mathsci, but whatever it was it doesn't look like it was very much. I also predict Future Perfect at Sunrise is waiting for an excuse to block me again, and next time there might not be an admin like King of Hearts who changes the block settings. I want to do something about this situation before there's another block or sanction like that, because afterwards doing anything about it might not be possible for me anymore. I also want to do something about it before the issues surrounding the previous block are thought of as stale.
What I would like more is if someone else would request arbitration, but it seems nobody else wants to do that either. You can correct me if I'm wrong. Do you intend to just put up with being under a one-way interaction ban, even though it seems to have not been for a good reason? Akuri (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One important reason to broaden your editing is that, even if your editing in R&I is generally good, the narrow focus would make severe sanctions more likely if you should make any misstep in the eyes of other editors in that topic area. I think the simplest answer is that you should do what you can to mitigate stress, and try to move forward. This sort of content dispute is very difficult to resolve quickly and attempting it can prove perilous for anyone, especially someone who has just registered an account.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean by move forward? You should know, while waiting for my account request to be approved I spent some time reading the history of arbitration requests and AE threads about R&I, including the numerous indefinite blocks and one-way interaction bans. The situation that led to my block has existed for a year, at least. It would be unwise to ignore it, because I'm sure it will affect me again sooner or later, even if R&I is not the only topic I edit. Akuri (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this juncture it would be more unwise for you to pursue it as a lot of "x-only" labels will be thrown around if you do pursue such things now. Sticking to less controversial activities for a while would make it easier for you to deal with more controversial issues later.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you suggest I wait? Remember I don't want to delay it so long that Arbcom will call the issue stale. I don't agree with what Mathsci said that I have to wait a year. 101.0.79.13 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't need to worry about misconduct in that topic area, including administrative misconduct, becoming a stale issue. If it does become stale then it means there are no continuing problems and there is really no reason to pursue it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that I don't want to wait until the block of my IP range is thought of as stale, I didn't meant admin misconduct overall. My concern is that if I don't get Arbcom to do something while my block is still current, the next example of admin misconduct might be a hard block of my entire IP range, ever the portion I'm posting from now that's not blocked. After that it would be too late for me to request arbitration.
Right now, I have a current example of admin misconduct I can present to Arbcom, yet I also can still participate. I'm lucky that way, because most of the other blocks that were handed out were indefinite. I don't want to press my luck, and expect to still have the ability to request arbitration after the next admin misconduct. Do you get my point? 101.0.79.15 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you are saying, but while I think it would certainly be possible to build a strong case at this point, putting yourself in the middle of one will likely have negative results for you no matter the outcome. Better to stick to other things and try to minimize your participation in the R&I area. Staying involved there is certainly reasonable, so long as you try to balance it out with activities elsewhere. The block will be an issue for however long the administrator's misconduct in general is an issue, that includes misconduct in other topic areas.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I won't have to decide whether to request a case. Someone else is requesting one. I've mentioned you there, so you might want to comment in it as well. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Akuri Akuri (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you shouldn't be doing that. I don't think they will accept a case and it will only increase the chances of you being rapidly and severely sanctioned.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was I supposed to do? As an involved party I was asked for a statement, and this is what I have to say. I'm not going to tell Arbcom to NOT take the case, when how I feel is the opposite. 101.0.79.15 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply ignore it. They will likely decline it "as framed" by the filer and so nothing will happen anyway.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Action

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gradual Gap Appearance and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbate1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akuri, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Akuri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

[edit]

I would like to reiterate that you would do better to avoid filing any request. Believe me, should I feel a case is needed and would be accepted, then I would be doing it myself. As it stands, I do not believe that step is viable or necessary at this point.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to follow your advice, and wait until I'm registered longer before I try to make a request myself. Do you think now I shouldn't ever make one?
When I said I think Mathsci is gaming your interaction ban with him, I meant comments like this, where he accused you of misrepresenting sources and you couldn't reply. He doesn't usually edit that article, so evidently he followed you there to do that. You also agreed that Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of my IP range a problem, and I have no reason to assume it's the last admin action he makes like that. I'd like to understand your perspective better. Do you think things like that are acceptable the way they are, or do you think there is some other way to resolve them short of requesting a case? 101.0.79.18 (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A month isn't long enough. You would have to edit heavily, preferably in several topic areas and not just R&I, for several months at least. I am not saying never, but unless something new and particularly severe happens then you are not likely to get anything done by bringing a request on this subject with your current status, except put yourself at risk of getting sanctioned.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Arbitration Committee. In summary the Arbitrators felt that this issue was not yet ready for arbitration because other steps in the Dispute Resolution process have not yet been used. Please also note that this topic area is already subject to discretionary sanctions so issues can be taken to Arbitration enforcement if there is clear violation of policy. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua

[edit]

Just so you know, KC's a woman. :) --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, section headings shouldn't include usernames so I removed the one in your section at the talk page.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mors Martell

[edit]

This you? Your comment on Sandstein's talk page seems to suggest it. WP:DUCK and all that.Volunteer Marek 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Besides briefly editing race articles and interacting with ErrantX, that person's editing has nothing in common with mine. They edited almost nothing but computer game articles. I found ErrantX's reply to him because I saw ErrantX's comments in several Arbcom requests that he was going to request arbitration, and I wanted to figure out why he didn't. Akuri (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

[edit]
sock posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm sure Mathsci would eventually figure out it's me, especially if I sometimes edit while logged out. Akuri (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

Try to cool down and do something else. I have noted that it would be good for you to branch out. Getting away from heated topics for a little bit can make it easier to deal and give you perspective. Also, the more you do elsewhere, the harder it is for people to paint your actions as being only focused on some POV or agenda.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems almost every day, I discover a new way this topic area is fucked up. I know the Mors Martell stuff doesn't matter that much, but it's the best example I've seen of Mathsci being allowed to call the shots about something that should be up to admins. If Sandstein doesn't want to request arbitration, I don't know what I'll do. It's hard to want to contribute anything in an environment that's so corrupt. Akuri (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some areas or some activities where people basically leave you alone. Dealing with topic areas such as this is easier when you have a safe place or two to go elsewhere.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After how he followed you and Academia Orientalis to new disputes, I'm not convinced of that. Akuri (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Academia Orientalis??? Look, you're way way way to familiar with the disputes in this area to have even a smidgen of credibility in regard to this persona of someone who "just edited as an IP" before diving head first into these topics. Just drop the act, it's not fooling anyone (well, maybe, but it really *shouldn't* fool anyone).Volunteer Marek 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci's wikihounding of Academia Orientalis was brought up by Cla68 in this discussion. I know almost nothing about him besides what Cla68 said, but when I read the last several arbitration threads before I had an account, that summary was impossible to miss. Akuri (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marek, as I told you already, I know he edited as an IP because Akuri was editing as an IP when I first ran into him. It isn't just some story he gave when questioned. He was actually already involved in this area as an IP so he didn't just suddenly step into the topic area upon registering an account.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) You know what? I don't care anymore. Call me a sock if you want. And if Mathsci wants, he can tag my account as simultaneously a sockpuppet of Mikemikev, Echigo mole and Ferhago the Assassin. This topic area is a hellhole. I'll be back if it looks like someone is doing something to try to improve it. Akuri (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies

[edit]

I would assume that your account will be blocked fairly soon if you insist on using open proxies. That can be determined by checkusers. You are also making trolling edits which you shouldn't do. That will also hasten a block. Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong. According to Wikipedia:Proxy#Policy: "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Akuri (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Race and intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earl Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Hi. There is a report at WP:AE concerning a matter in which you are involved. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement warning

[edit]

As discussed in the arbitration enforcement request concerning you, I am warning you that you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions, as described at WP:AC/DS, if you repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Specifically, I advise you that you may not use IP addresses or alternate accounts for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny of your conduct, and that if you do edit Wikipedia while logged out via shared IP addresses or open proxies, you assume the risk of edits by others being ascribed to you, and being sanctioned for these edits. This warning may be enforced with discretionary sanctions with respect to all topic areas for which these are authorized; that is:

Thank you for your understanding and your compliance.  Sandstein  06:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's within your authority to warn me about the discretionary sanctions in topic areas I've never edited, and never shown any interest in editing? Akuri (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes editors need not have edited in any area for them to be notified (warned) about discretionary sanctions. See WP:AC/DS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom motion

[edit]

A motion was passed in September 2012 regarding restoring and enabling edits by banned users.[1]

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:

banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;

the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;

any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor: which was posted within the R&I topic or which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.

A thread started by a community banned user, blocked by an arbitrator, is invalid. Echigo mole was trolling on WP:AN. Your own questions were answered by Deskana. WP:Asking the other parent is not an option, particularly if your just enabling the disruption of a troll sock. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the student is ready the master will appear

[edit]

Watch and learn from the master. {{db-g3}} is your friend. Shred the cirque (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Is this Echigo mole again? Akuri (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

[edit]

I have mentioned you, specifically in conjunction with your edit history, on the Evidence Talk page (here). At the moment I do not, myself, intend to pursue this any farther -- to my knowledge, I have not had any substantial interactions with you. I simply had questions about how it might be handled, or if there was existing precedent. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

I, as well as a number of other administrators, have been asked to look into your account history. When I did so, I found numerous points that suggest that you are neither a new user nor, as you assert, a user who once edited using IP addresses only. Checkuser evidence makes it clear that you are using proxies in an attempt to evade scrutiny of any previous interaction with Wikipedia. You have displayed an extensive knowledge of both key Wikipedia "power users" as well as awareness of obscure (to the public at least) features of Wikipedia policy from the beginning of your editing career. Your editing is also entirely in an area of Wikipedia with numerous ban-evading sockpuppeteers. I don't know which one you are; I'm sure someone more familiar with the topic area would be able to say. But at the very least you are a disruptive single purpose account editing extensively in Wikipedia-space, which is forbidden by policy. Accordingly, I am blocking your account indefinitely. NW (Talk) 23:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought this block to the attention of other checkusers via the functionaries-en mailing list. NW (Talk) 02:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW, his reason for using proxies has been pretty clear for a while. Tim blocked a very broad IP range (roughly 17,000 IPs) that covered the range Akuri was using. Tim stated a sockmaster had used the broader IP range previously. I asked Tim what sockmaster had been using it, but he never specified.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the original IP range Akuri was using and I've seen that it has indeed been used by a sockmaster; I cannot tell you who that user was, because, by doing so, I'd be connecting a named account to an IP, which is prohibited by both the CU and the privacy policies, as interpreted by the audit subcommittee – which, I assume, was also the reason Tim chose not to reply to your query. It's also interesting to note that at least one of the IPs in the range in question was independently blocked and tagged as a sock of a banned user active in the R&I topic area. I'm not saying that Akuri is a sock of that sockmaster, for I'm relatively unfamiliar with him, but that certainly looks suspicious... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the specific ranges of 101.71 and 101.79 were used by a sockmaster or others in the broader range Tim blocked? I presume IPs that have already been tagged as belonging to a named sockmaster are fine to disclose. Would you tell me which sockmaster that was?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No other IP in the 101.0 or 110.32 ranges has been tagged as a sockpuppet of a banned user (unless a revision has been deleted somewhere, but that would probably indicate mistaken tagging). All visible IP edits from 101.0.64.0/18 have been from IPs tagged as socks of Akuri. The evidence appears insufficient - no other account has been identified - and the edits from 101.0.79.14 and 101.0.79.22 appear to breach WP:ILLEGIT but that's not enough to justify an indefinite block. Peter James (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim the Akuri is using proxies to evade scrutiny doesn't really make sense -- how can a named, logged in account be "evading scrutiny"? WP:PROXY states While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. (The proxy, not the user). NE Ent 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a long history to all this which involves an editor who is known to have used many dubious IPs (see category). The IPs are dubious in that some (all?) have been found to be proxies. There was a long discussion at AN I think where it was pointed out that some of the IPs belong to PureVPN which is an inexpensive service designed to allow people to hide their location. The user shifted from IPs to an account, and the OP above says "Checkuser evidence makes it clear that you are using proxies...". An open website like Wikipedia has to draw the line somewhere, and R&I is known to have been infested with socks using proxies, and when Akuri started quite early in a campaign against Mathsci it was clear that they are not just a random person with an interest in R&I who happens to use a proxy server to edit Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, that AN discussion also noted that PureVPN didn't have a server in Australia at the time Akuri was editing from the 110.32 IP range, which also geolocated to the same part of Australia. The claim that he was using PureVPN is not well-established and even if it were it wouldn't mean he was editing from somewhere other than Australia as that service also sets up corporate networks in countries where it has servers and said networks have the same anonymizing features. It thus isn't accurate to say they are proxies. I already addressed the statement NW gave about proxies, which was talking about explicit proxy servers. He blocked when he saw proxies, claiming it was done to evade scrutiny, without doing his due diligence to see that it was because of Akuri being caught in a very broad range block covering over 16,000 IPs and NW has yet to acknowledge this error in assumption.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

[edit]
I've renamed the header for this section from "Unblock" to "Unblock request". Most readers of the table of contents would have assumed this section contained a message that this account has been unblocked. AGK [•] 23:47, 17 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

The IP addresses I used before I registered are listed here, and my editing history from them reaches back to February 2012. I have not been using proxies to evade scrutiny, I'm using them because I no longer have any other way to edit, as TDA explained above. I asked both King of Hearts and NE Ent if they could think of a way for me to edit without using proxies, but they both couldn't. But if admins want to see my real IP and location, they can look at the 110.32.* and 101.0.* ranges on that list, which aren't proxies. As far as I know, no banned sockmasters in the R&I topic live remotely near me. Second, admins should understand my familiarity with policy is partly because I've been corresponding with experienced users who are sympathetic to my situation, particularly The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. Finally, it's not correct that I edit entirely in the race and intelligence area. I did at first, but for the past three weeks I have broadened my horizons and focused on articles about international politics and national parks. If unblocked, I will not be a single-purpose account anymore, just as I haven't been recently. Akuri (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(Checkuser comment) I see no basis whatsoever to overturn this block or to doubt the conclusions of the blocking checkuser. AGK [•] 10:40, 18 May 2013 (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.

I asked both King of Hearts and NE Ent if they could think of a way for me to edit without using proxies, but they both couldn't. It would be pretty easy: now that you have an account, you could be granted WP:IPBE, so this makes your use of proxies at least suspicious... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the rangeblock was made, King of Hearts asked the blocking admin if I could have IP block exception, but the request for IPBE was declined. Did NW not know that when he assumed I was using proxies to evade scrutiny? Akuri (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's something only NW can comment on... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few ways to edit without using proxies: use your home Internet service provider. Go to a public library. Go to a coffee shop or any other venue with free wi-fi. If you have the time and resources to find and use a rotating selection of proxies and anonymizers, then none of those options should be prohibitive. Somehow, virtually all other Wikipedia editors manage it.

Setting aside the flimsiness of your alibi for a moment, please understand that we have to draw the line somewhere in areas which have been beset with abusive sockpuppetry. If we allow new agenda accounts into these areas - accounts who behave exactly like banned sockpuppeteers and take steps to camouflage their IPs - then there is no hope of creating a constructive editing environment. I don't like the term "collateral damage" - especially since I think we both know that your story is false, and it's no great mystery who you are - but if you were telling the truth, I think you would still need to accept that this is a necessary decision in regards to the project's integrity. MastCell Talk 18:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't suggesting anything I didn't already discuss with King of Hearts. I don't HAVE a home ISP anymore. I let my account with them expire them months ago because it wasn't worth the money when my employer's network is adequate for every website except Wikipedia. Until yesterday, using proxies at Wikipedia also was a hell of a lot easier than having to drive somewhere and only edit when I was there. Did you not read the prior discussions?
What you and other admins ought to understand is that I didn't create this situation that looks suspicious to you, and I didn't want it. I used to edit anonymously from my default IP range. I didn't want an account. Then FPAS blocked the range because my dynamic IP address made it difficult to track my edits, and told me to get an account. It took a month because even though the block was meant to make me register, it was a hard block that disabled registration. Then I edited from my default IP range while logged in, until it was caught in a huge rangeblock of 17,000 IPs because a sockmaster had used some of them, and I was denied IPBE. After that I mostly edited while logged out using proxies, until I was told I could be blamed for edits that other people make from the same proxies on articles I'd never edited. I never WANTED to log into my account with proxies, my other options were gradually stripped away.
When I was posting as an IP from my default range, there was no confusion about who I was and where I lived. All of the anonymous the edits I made non-proxy IPs are still visible. But by creating layer upon layer of restrictions that were increasingly difficult to follow, admins created a situation that looked suspicious enough to block me because of it. I guarantee, you could do the same thing to almost any other editor who's participated in a controversial area, and create a similar result. Akuri (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually nothing about your explanation passes the smell test. For starters, it doesn't make sense that your employer's Internet connection is useful for every online activity except for editing Wikipedia. Mind you, I'm not asking for you to elaborate, because I'm not interested in more falsehoods. But I think that if you look at your story objectively, you'll appreciate why no one is willing to extend you much credibility.

Moreover, the "restrictions" you're describing aren't unique to you in any way. We generally don't allow brand-new accounts who take steps to conceal their IP addresses to edit controversial, sock-infested content areas - particularly when their contributions are indistinguishable from those of a prolific sockpuppeteer. Those restrictions weren't crafted on the spot for you; they're longstanding and commonsensical.

You're not eligible for an IP block exemption. The relevant policy makes clear that editors are granted this exemption to edit through proxies only in exceptional circumstances. I don't think that a unwillingness to use your existing Internet connection, or an unwillingness to avail yourself of free alternatives, qualifies as an exceptional need. Moreover, that level of trust is equivalent to that granted an administrator, and I don't think you meet the qualifications for that level of trust based on your contributions to date. MastCell Talk 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing here? The things you say show that you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my history. When I say I can't use my employer's network at Wikipedia, what I mean is their network is covered by the rangeblock. Their network is part of the 101.0.* range, so if I try to edit from it without using a proxy the rangeblock prevents me posting anything. This is not difficult to understand, and I have trouble believing you don't understand it. The explanations for the various restrictions I've been placed under also are publicly visible, and anyone reads them can see they had nothing to do with the suspicion I was socking. For example the reason I was forced to create an account is because when I was posting anonymously my dynamic IP made it too difficult to track my edits. Your comments don't only contradict things I've said, they contradict the public explanations given by other admins.
Before now, my only interaction with you was criticising you for your involvement in topic areas where you also use your admin tools. Now I should be having a dialogue with checkusers about my block, and you've inserted yourself in a discussion that doesn't involve you. Why is that? Why is it so important to you that I not be unblocked, that you have to misrepresent the reasons other admins gave for their actions? Akuri (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I've misread the chronology of events, then I apologize. My other points remain: if you focus on a controversial, sock-infested topic area and parrot the exact agenda of a well-known sockpuppeteer and insist on using proxies to camouflage your IP address, then you meet the criteria that this site has generally used to restrict sockpuppetry. As you note, the checkusers are the ones to talk to, as I'm not in possession of any of the technical data underlying your block. I will say that it seems that every checkuser who's looked at your account has found your IP data highly suspicious (leaving aside the fact that the your contributions and your personal feuds are indistinguishable from those of Captain Occam/Ferahgo). But that's between you and the checkusers. MastCell Talk 23:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Akuri, I encourage you to respond in full to the points raised by MastCell. Those points are a complete and succinct summary of why you were blocked and why it is impossible for you to be unblocked at this time. AGK [•] 23:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what I need to respond to. I explained why the rangeblock makes it impossible for me to edit without using proxies. Do you need to know why the issues I bring up are similar to what other editors have brought up, including editors who are banned now? I already touched on the reason for that.
The dispute centering around Mathsci has churned for about a year, and been in about a dozen AE reports and arbitration requests, none of which resolved much. As more and more editors have been sucked into it, and it hasn't come any closer to resolution, many of us have started sharing information with each other to try to help the inexperienced editors cope with it. My dispute with Mathsci started before I knew about any of this, and before I had an account, for example in this discussion when I argued with Mathsci in February 2012 while posting from the 110.32.* IP range. I first came into contact with some of the others who've been in disputes with him about two months ago, after FPAS blocked my IP range while I was waiting for an account to be created for me. Please understand I was editing R&I articles and in disputes with Mathsci about a year before I was in contact with anyone else about him. Nobody influenced me to do either of those things, they only gave me information to help me cope with what what editors who do this have to endure.
Arbcom has experienced situations like this before. When Cla68 was in a dispute with Mathsci, Mathsci complained that Cla68 seemed to be getting information from Captain Occam. Even though Mathsci hates this, he seems to understand it doesn't mean we're socks. He didn't call Cla68 a sock, and in his comment here he said he didn't think I was one either.
Sharing information between each other isn't socking, and it's not against policy either. And honestly, as long as this dispute continues to churn and Arbcom makes no effort to resolve it, I don't see how you can expect anything different from any of us. It would be best for Arbcom to get used to the results of this situation, because blocking every subsequent editor who does what I did certainly wont resolve it. If I stay blocked, I'll become yet another former editor who has experience with Mathsci, and who the next person that's in my situation will come to for advice. Akuri (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's summarize - Akuri says he has no internet at home, but [2] show someone who has edited in 22 of the 24 hours of the day. Accusationsofathrownsock (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or the employer's network is available at home (or nearby) so no separate ISP is necessary? Peter James (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Peter James said. I mentioned this at AE, [3] but now it doesn't matter anymore.
Are you an admin? I want you to know that Mathsci modified my response to AGK about a half hour before AGK denied my unblock request, and didn't undo his edit until after AGK denied it. His alteration removed my answer to his claim that I never interacted with him before February 2013. I wonder if AGK might have accepted my response to him if Mathsci hadn't altered it. 188.142.44.83 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He undid your edit because he had replied to the previous version; he subsequently restored it after removing his reply. Peter James (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few quick points: I did not know about your previous IPBE request, no. I had asked another administrator, but if they were familiar with your supposed reason for needing to use proxies, they did not communicate that to me. And frankly, tough luck. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We have no due process or beyond-reasonable-doubt evidence standards here. Seriously, do you seriously expect other people to believe that you just happened to end up communicating with The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 by email and that you just happened to end up continuing the agenda of previous disruptive editors? I cannot convince myself to believe a word of your story. NW (Talk) 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW, I am the one who initiated e-mail communications with Akuri, not the other way around. We had also already interacted numerous times on-wiki before and after he registered his account. His objections to ArtifexMayhem's conduct are not at all unusual as Artifex has been one of the most active editors recently on the Race and Intelligence article and Akuri has had several disputes with him there before and after registering his account. People raising similar objections to similar conduct is not bizarre at all.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"previous disruptive editors"? So it's an agenda supported by several editors already and one more wouldn't be a surprise, or is it so distinctive that it can only be from a sockpuppet? Peter James (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(With apologies to AGK.) Given the checkuser statements above, it is almost certain that Akuri is a sockpuppet of Captain Occam operated in exactly the same way as Zeromus1 and Mors Martell. As MastCell and NuclearWarfare have indicated, the vocabulary is the same as that of the Occam/Ferahgo campaign. In the case of Ferahgo's sockpuppet Zeromus1, where the edits were less aggressive in tone, there were a similar series of untenable claims connected with the use of open proxies. Mathsci (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Wer900 is a sockpuppet of Captain Occam too? Wer900 is considering the same thing I was considering, and for the same reason. Akuri (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akuri

[edit]

I don't know what you were expecting, but if you were expecting to get unblocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akuri was not the right way to go about it. NW (Talk) 02:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person currently using that IP is someone else, not me. Akuri (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare, I'm not sure what your point is linking to an SPI investigation which does not implicate Akuri in anything. Could you explain? And also, could you please explain what due dilligence process you used before blocking Akuri in the first place? I think that Devil's Advocate has asked some questions above which you haven't yet answered. It could be that Akuri is a sock, but that doesn't mean that you can't follow due process when trying to prove it. So, please prove it. Otherwise, you're taking WP back to 2006 when this kind of treatment of suspect editors was commonplace. Cla68 (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NW, if you and other admins are going to assume I'm the new 110 IP, you should explain how you think I possibly can also be a banned user. That IP address obviously is not a proxy or a webserver. If there are no R&I banned editors in the same location as me and the IP, then us being one of them isn't possible. Did you check whether there are before you blocked me? If you didn't, you should check it now. Akuri (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Akuri wrote above, "My dispute with Mathsci started before I knew about any of this, and before I had an account, for example in this discussion when I argued with Mathsci in February 2012 while posting from the 110.32.* IP range." Now the person using that IP range claims those edits were by him not Akuri.[4] Mathsci (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now you believe me that the IP isn't me? Then you should remove the sock tag from the IP's user page, and get FPAS to unblock it. Akuri (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my supposition is that this account and the other are operated by the same person. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Although I'm blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, the blocking admin NW evidently did not do a checkuser comparing me to the banned user I'm suspected to be. He said in this comment [5] that he assumed making this comparison was not possible, Peter James then replied [6] that it was in fact possible, and after that NW ceased responding to all queries about my block. If the data to make this comparison was available, it seems like a mistake to assume that it wasn't and to block me without examining it. I request that an uninvolved admin do a checkuser comparing both me and the 110.32.199.135 IP to user:Captain Occam, and to any other banned users associated with the R&I topic that we're suspected of being. Akuri (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser can not be used to prove innocence as it is impossible to prove a negative. It is simply one tool out of many that can be used to determine a connection between accounts and is not required in order to block an editor. Checkuser will not connect registered editors to IP addresses. Only Checkusers have access to the Checkuser tools, regular admin do not. Procedural decline, did not compare accounts. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:57, 7 June 2013 (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.

  • This account was blocked on behavioural evidence. Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust that will make the behavioural evidence disappear. This also appears to be a checkuser block, so no ordinary admin can overturn it, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clear this up, this is NOT a CU block. CU blocks will have the phrase {{checkuserblock}} or {{cublock}} in the block log and this doesn't. Blocks by a CU are not automatically CUblocks. You are correct on CU not being magic pixie dust. No block will ever take place using only CU data, they all require behavioral analysis. CU data is sometimes helpful, but is never required to make a block. It is simply a tool. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the above discussion, Peter James and The Devil's Advocate brought up several ways the assumptions NW's block was based on were wrong, and soon NW ceased trying to respond to any of their points. Cla68 commented that NW was not answering their concerns, and asked NW to respond, but he got no response either. If the behavioural evidence were strong, I think NW would have been able to justify the basis for his block in response to these editors' objections. It's only the icing on the cake that he didn't realise it was possible to use checkuser to compare me to the banned user I'm alleged to be.
When you say this is a "procedural decline", I assume that means I made my request the wrong way. What is the right way to request that someone examine the technical evidence that NW didn't examine, and also his failure to answer the objections made by The Devil's Advocate's, Peter James, and Cla68? Akuri (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were asking for a checkuser to be performed and I was declining based on those grounds only. I have not investigated the original block or SPI case. For the record, SPI clerks/CUs will not go into great detail as to how a determination was made, via WP:BEANS and because that information can be used to make it easier for a sockpuppet to evade block in the future. I would also note that Checkusers may have information that they can not release to the general public (ie: if an IP does match up to a registered account and other information) due to the privacy policy, and others (even admin) may not have access to all the information available for other reasons. Checkuser who are Arbitrators (as in this case) may have access to a great deal more than editors, admin or Checkusers. This may or may not be the case here, my point being that others should be aware that there might be more information than is available publicly. Questions about the block should be directed to the blocking admin. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the correct recourse when the blocking admin is unwilling to answer questions about his block, either from me or from the three other editors asking him about it? That's the situation here. Akuri (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have several active admins lined up against you, you're screwed unless someone with some credibility and prestige with WP's administration goes to bat for you. It appears that no one will do so because they're afraid that you may be associated with a block of editors who have a perceived racist POV related to the Race and Intelligence topic area. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history and contribs, it is blindingly obvious to anyone that you are a sockpuppet of someone. Combined with the CU disclosure of using open proxies and other methods, the content of the edits and other stylistic factors, there simply is no doubt and to claim otherwise is disingenuous. I have no opinion on the content of any of the edits (not a field I remotely care about), but I'm far enough removed to be considered objective here yet the conclusion is crystal clear, and would be to even a novice once they look at the evidence. Talk page access removed, unblocked denied. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals

[edit]

For your convenience the e-mail address for ArbCom appeals is arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. As I told you, I think the only way you can sufficiently rebut the accusation at this point is to give the Arbs indisputable proof of your identity, such as by providing scans or photos of valid identity documents proving you are who you say. Presumably anything particularly sensitive can be blacked out, but just some form of valid government-issued documentation with your name should suffice. A photo ID would be especially good.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would of course recuse from any such appeal, though I am not sure how well TDA's advice would go over with the rest of the Committee. NW (Talk) 17:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I am suggesting seems like a pretty good way to challenge a sock-puppetry claim to the satisfaction of anyone. If he can't or won't produce such documentation then he would stay blocked, but if he can prove beyond any doubt that he is who he says and not whomever you suspect then should you not welcome that?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, an unknown person sends ArbCom scans of identity papers, proving... that they have access to those identity papers. Nothing more. No proof of identity has occurred, since the papers could be theirs or the could belong to a family member, or a friend, or could have been bought on the black market or... And, since the goal here is to show that Akuri is not CO or FtA or one of that lot, all of those people would have to be postively identified as well. So, what you're suggesting is pretty much impossible to achieve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they could have him take a photo of himself holding a photo ID in front of his computer with his user page plainly visible on the screen to make it abundantly clear that he is the person on the ID who is the person on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, I could take a picture of me holding my ID in front of Akuri's user page, or yours, or Nuclear Warfare's - would that prove that I was any of those people? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have no clue what you are talking about and should leave this discussion alone as it does not concern you. Akuri can do whatever he feels necessary, or the Arbs deem necessary, to rebut the sock-puppet accusation should he wish to pursue an appeal. Whether he takes my suggestion or not, his talk page is not the place for your asinine commentary about it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my suggestion to upload copies of identifying documents is how other major sites verify that a member is who he or she purports to be and with Akuri the identity would have to be someone with a specific name from a specific place. It couldn't just be any person because his account is tied to a specific e-mail address and that tied to the aforementioned name, which is one of the things you presumably don't know. There are other ways to check the identity such as having him send a phone number and then calling that number. During another discussion about sock-puppetry allegations it was suggested that the person go on Skype because the alleged sockmaster's identity was well-known. The only alleged sockmaster here is someone whose identity is presumably known to the Committee as his on-wiki identity was tied to his real name and all the other usual suspects are also identifiable individuals. Sure, you can probably come up with some convoluted excuse for not accepting any potentially exculpatory evidence, but if someone would have to come up with the kind of absurd explanations you are offering to continue asserting guilt then it would be more logical to presume innocence. I think something akin to what I suggested would be quite compelling regardless of what you say and Akuri should do it if he is willing and able.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akuri&oldid=1151017191"