Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 11 September 2008

Puppet theater

Hi, Thatcher.
Here're two possible sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
I've never had problems with these accounts, by few things drew my attention, that makes me believe that they might be his sockpuppets:
- interest area (Montenegro, History of Montenegro)
- very short edit period - this is the feature of SPA's and sleeper accounts
- because of limitation of checkuser tools, it'd good to see if they are sleepers
- these accounts had communication with PaxEquilibrium (and Pax with them)

• Petar Montenegrin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

6 edits, 4 on 30 June 2008 (2 times on the talkpage of PaxEquilibrium and ) and 2 on 10 July 2008 Here he refers to Pax's opponent and In fact, Petar Montenegrin appears here as the opponent to Pax (Pax Equilibrium uporno širi prosrpsku propagandu, "Pax persistently spreads pro-Serbian propaganda"), as the one that disagrees with Pax. Was that done with the purpose of confusing the others? Out of 6 edits, he already found Pax?

• Perjanik (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Even here. Pax talks with him on his talkpage (puppetmasters often do that: talk between puppet and master). Here appears favourite Pax's idea, "fully incorporated into a ], the newly acquired ]n land, then called Zeta" (saying for Montenegro as "Serbian land")".
I don't want to etiquette these two accounts, I just want to remove any suspicion. Thanks for the attention, Kubura (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am Mario (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

...could be his puppet too. Pax was obssessed with one shaky reinterpretation of historical source De Administrando Imperio, which he used to conquer the articles like Pagania. It appeared that Pax puppets were talking to each other, in this case Pax said "wellcome" to User talk:I am Mario 45 minutes after his 1st appearance. An anon contributing (User:Adam Bishop asked him in the talk page: are you Mario?) to DAI article transformed to User:I am Mario. Pax did distinguish himself from this anon , in the same way as he did it elsewhere too, like here , as you can see he criticized his own sock edits. While his socks were wild and extreme POV pushers, Pax as master had image of an objective contributor. This account was created in May, there's possibility that Pax created it to support his claims in Pagania article, where he was opposing consensus reached by other users involved, as well as prolong an earlier anon actions in De Administrando Imperio. See Talk:De Administrando Imperio. Can you check User:I am Mario please. Zenanarh (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me if I bother you, but I do believe this is Pax, User:I am Mario's, User:Pasha011's and User:Progwa's edit dates are overlapping: 24/25 August, 1 Sept, 6 Sept. I'd really apreciate if you check this user, I'm not ghost hunter, just don't want to waste my time with some octopus. Thanks. Zenanarh (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Progwa (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

You confirmed Pasha011 to be a sock of Pax, User:Progwa prolongs his game there . Zenanarh (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that user:Rjecka-budala is Pax. With knowledge which IP he is using now my only comment is that we can't block him ??--Rjecina (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Allegations

No problem. I was actually involved in trying to keep things calm, and apparently thats out of style now.--Tznkai (talk)

Checkuser request

Hi, I was wondering if you could do a check on Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), as he is a new user, yet knows about rollback and arbcom, as you can see from his edits(I didn't bother linking the diffs as he only has 4. I know this isn't much evidence, but things just don't line up. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus /_Improve 07:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you didn't forget about this, or did I do something wrong?— Dædαlus /_Improve 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been very busy lately (see the note above). But there is definitely some funny business going on here. See User talk:Fatal!ty. Thatcher 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Really going now

Nothing to do with that particular incident, just the whole thing. Thanks - I believe you were one of the good ones, but it is all too much. Scrambling password now. Peter Damian (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Interesting aftermath. Thatcher 03:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Petition

Hi Thatcher, I intend to petition Arbcom re Giano's civility parole, which appears to be unworkable in practice, ill thought out in theory, and ultimately a license for unnecessary wiki-drama that aren't any good for the project. I'm not sure this has been done before - I don't think the format of RFC is appropriate as this will be a petition of support, not a drama inducing dust up regarding Giano in general. Unless you think otherwise, I'll put it at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/petitions/Giano - although perhaps I should put it on a subpage connected to the case. Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have any thoughts or recommendations. I'm not sure you can avoid drama, though, as there are bound to be people who oppose. The problem is that while special civility enforcement against this person is not working out, neither is it appropriate for editors to be calling each other idiots and making deliberately cutting and insulting remarks. Thatcher 10:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Email

You can disregard my email. I ended up talking to smoddy. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Please see my question at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerTown101

Even if the sweep came back negative, can you comment on whether the two named accounts are indeed the same person?Kww (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• They are technically unrelated to each other as well. Thatcher 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Fatal!ty#Blocked

Oh geez. Why is it whenever I approve someone for rollback it seems to go wrong? (rolls eyes) Neıl ☄ 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just be sure to ask me before you ever get engaged :) Thatcher 11:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had been watching this users edits since he MfD'ed the[REDACTED] sandbox. Although I was surprised to see him after only one month of editing at my RfA. And he was soon followed by another after only his third day. How do I ask that the !vote be discounted without my obvious bias? Synergy 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mjchesnel is unrelated. You can ask at the bureaucrat's noticeboard for the crats to take note of Fatal!ty as well as the comments of other users such as Mjchesnel who have very short histories. Thatcher 13:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to look into this

You may want to read this.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fatal!ty

Hi Thatcher, I see that i've been indefinitely blocked once again in connection to vandalism that is not my own. I was wondering whether it would be possible to unblock me for a specific period of time and bring my case before arbcom so that I can prove my innocence. If this does not work, then simply re-block me per[REDACTED] policy. I continue to maintain my innocence and stress once again that those vandals do not belong to me. I also have left a series of questions under an {unblock} request on my talk page. I hope that if i've been found 'not guilty' then we can put this egregious mistake behind us and continue improving the encyclopedia. --Fatal!ty 07:35, 11 September 2008(UTC)