| Revision as of 01:50, 28 May 2013 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Protecting Talk Pages← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:46, 28 May 2013 edit undo110.32.199.135 (talk) →Protecting Talk PagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| ::I'm not Akuri. Problem solved? ] (]) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | ::I'm not Akuri. Problem solved? ] (]) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Really? The "Akuri account" claimed the edits in exactly the same range from February 2012 were by them. It started with a blanking of a section of the lede and comments on the talk page that started like this. ''"Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located ''above'' the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important."'' Your own comments were almost identical. ''"I don't think the APAA statements should be in the intro, as as far as I can tell, this organization has had absolutely nothing to do with the debate apart from this statement."'' The problem is that whoever is writing this is forgetting to use Australian spelling ("organization"). ] (]) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | :::Really? The "Akuri account" claimed the edits in exactly the same range from February 2012 were by them. It started with a blanking of a section of the lede and comments on the talk page that started like this. ''"Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located ''above'' the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important."'' Your own comments were almost identical. ''"I don't think the APAA statements should be in the intro, as as far as I can tell, this organization has had absolutely nothing to do with the debate apart from this statement."'' The problem is that whoever is writing this is forgetting to use Australian spelling ("organization"). ] (]) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::The "Akuri account" (which I had never heard of until 2 days ago) is lying. Can't someone just perform checkuser on him to see if he has the same IP? | |||
Revision as of 05:46, 28 May 2013
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User:Joshuaforest
Hi there NW, AL "here",
unfortunately, the reason's the same, vandalism (or the sorts): please take at this message i sent to a fellow user about this chap above (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Struway2#User:Joshuaforest). Consulting Mr.JF's talkpage you will see he's been warned and blocked several times, the latter including for what appears to be sockpuppetry.
Talks to noone, directly or indirectly, writes zero in summaries to top it. What can be done in your opinion? Attentively, keep it up. --AL (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for bothering you. --AL (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry; I have mostly been dealing with Arbitration Committee matters the last few days and haven't looked here very much. Still want me to look into this? NW (Talk) 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Has been blocked for one week it seems. Thanks for the reply though, all the best in and out of the wikispace. --AL (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Don't worry about bothering me ever; always please feel free to request my assistance here. NW (Talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Akuri
The user has recently resumed where they left off editing as an IP. I filed an SPI but the circumstances are such there's not much more they can do there. I'm alerting you so that you might convey this to a more appropriate venue should you agree it's warranted. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have commented, though likely not to your satisfaction (nor my own). NW (Talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no easy end to this available but I knew better than to expect one. Thanks for looking into this though and helping chip away at the problem. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Has Akuri been checked as a possible sockpuppet of Captain Occam? Peter James (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have my suspicions, but I don't know if anyone has stored CheckUser information about Captain Occam. After all this time, it would certainly have been wiped from the records. NW (Talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- The most recent edits were on 26 March. According to meta:CheckUser policy#CheckUser status information is stored for 3 months. Peter James (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason the usual IP from the US would not have been used. When editing as Zeromus1, Ferahgo the Assassin claimed to be editing from China. But they also apparently edited from the US. There were similar problems with Mors Martell. Besides, during the R&I review a year ago, Captain Occam made one edit on his talk page to try to prove something or other. In much the same way the Mors Martell account has reappeared out of the blue, both here and on wikipediocracy, trying to prove something or other. It is the fact that they're trying to prove something or other that's the problem. Akuri's use of last year's IP range contradicts his story about his employer's computer network. Why would they use two different webhosting services? Yfever was no different. He claimed to edit from NZ but also edited logged off from the US. Zeromus1 said she knew him off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Captain Occam/Ferahgo also recruit meatpuppets off-wiki to convey their own handiwork here (copy/paste
failtrail ), so we know they also take pains to conceal themselves through the use of their recruits' IPs. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Captain Occam/Ferahgo also recruit meatpuppets off-wiki to convey their own handiwork here (copy/paste
- There's no reason the usual IP from the US would not have been used. When editing as Zeromus1, Ferahgo the Assassin claimed to be editing from China. But they also apparently edited from the US. There were similar problems with Mors Martell. Besides, during the R&I review a year ago, Captain Occam made one edit on his talk page to try to prove something or other. In much the same way the Mors Martell account has reappeared out of the blue, both here and on wikipediocracy, trying to prove something or other. It is the fact that they're trying to prove something or other that's the problem. Akuri's use of last year's IP range contradicts his story about his employer's computer network. Why would they use two different webhosting services? Yfever was no different. He claimed to edit from NZ but also edited logged off from the US. Zeromus1 said she knew him off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The most recent edits were on 26 March. According to meta:CheckUser policy#CheckUser status information is stored for 3 months. Peter James (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have my suspicions, but I don't know if anyone has stored CheckUser information about Captain Occam. After all this time, it would certainly have been wiped from the records. NW (Talk) 19:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Avatar
NW, in your close of the previous RM discussion on Avatar, it appears that you did not give serious consideration to the idea of having no primary topic. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says: "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." This is one of those cases. Shouldn't the obvious lack of consensus mean no primary topic? Anyway, there's a new RM open at Talk:Avatar if you have any words of wisdom... Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh, that was two years ago wasn't it. I'll consider commenting, though I don't think much has changed in either the consensus realm or the real world since I closed that discussion then. NW (Talk) 03:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's also a discussion related to it at WT:D#Is there a primary topic for Avatar?. It looked to me from your closing statement that you didn't take "no primary topic" to be a viable option, or at least didn't give it consideration as the default option when the different criteria diverged and there was no consensus for what to select as primary. Maybe I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hard to recall my thought process then based on the little I wrote, but I believe I did take that into consideration. I reread the old discussion last night. I would have closed it the same way today. NW (Talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's also a discussion related to it at WT:D#Is there a primary topic for Avatar?. It looked to me from your closing statement that you didn't take "no primary topic" to be a viable option, or at least didn't give it consideration as the default option when the different criteria diverged and there was no consensus for what to select as primary. Maybe I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Protecting Talk Pages
I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but isn't this an extremely drastic and conservapedia-like measure that makes it all too easy to shut down all debate? There was also no vandalism in the talk pages recent history (let alone "most severe") which is the only reason given on the Protection Policy article for such a measure. (I am of course talking about the race and intelligence talk page.) 110.32.199.135 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- That page contradicts itself: in the "Guidance for administrators" section, "Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption". Sock puppetry, including block evasion, is a form of disruption, and if you are User:Akuri should request to be unblocked with your account, and not edit logged out. Peter James (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not Akuri. Problem solved? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Really? The "Akuri account" claimed the edits in exactly the same range from February 2012 were by them. It started with a blanking of a section of the lede and comments on the talk page that started like this. "Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located above the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important." Your own comments were almost identical. "I don't think the APAA statements should be in the intro, as as far as I can tell, this organization has had absolutely nothing to do with the debate apart from this statement." The problem is that whoever is writing this is forgetting to use Australian spelling ("organization"). Mathsci (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "Akuri account" (which I had never heard of until 2 days ago) is lying. Can't someone just perform checkuser on him to see if he has the same IP?
- Really? The "Akuri account" claimed the edits in exactly the same range from February 2012 were by them. It started with a blanking of a section of the lede and comments on the talk page that started like this. "Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located above the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important." Your own comments were almost identical. "I don't think the APAA statements should be in the intro, as as far as I can tell, this organization has had absolutely nothing to do with the debate apart from this statement." The problem is that whoever is writing this is forgetting to use Australian spelling ("organization"). Mathsci (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not Akuri. Problem solved? 110.32.199.135 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)