| Revision as of 15:24, 18 May 2013 editNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Unblock request: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:42, 18 May 2013 edit undoThe Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 edits →Unblock requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
| ::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. Misplaced Pages 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. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | ::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. Misplaced Pages 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. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 17:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:42, 18 May 2013
Welcome!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Akuri! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sue Rangell and I have been editing Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
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
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)
- I would like to broaden my editing, but I have very little time to spend at Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Akuri Akuri (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Arbitration Action
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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,Misplaced Pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbate1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Akuri, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Akuri! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. |
Arbitration request
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Arbitration case request declined
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)
KillerChihuahua
Just so you know, KC's a woman. :) --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Mors Martell
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)
- 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)
Advise
- sock posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Advice
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
Open proxies
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)
- I haven't done anything wrong. According to Misplaced Pages: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)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)
FYI
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)
Arbitration enforcement warning
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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:
- Pages relating to Abortion (Abortion)
- Pages relating to Afghanistan (India-Pakistan, motion)
- Pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (Palestine-Israel articles)
- Pages relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)
- Pages relating to Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand)
- Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia)
- Pages relating to Climate change (Climate change)
- Pages relating to Eastern Europe (Eastern Europe)
- Pages relating to Falun Gong (Falun Gong)
- Pages relating to Gibraltar (Gibraltar)
- Pages relating to India (India-Pakistan, motion)
- Pages relating to Longevity (Longevity)
- Pages relating to the Manual of Style and article titles policy (Article titles and capitalisation)
- Pages relating to the Monty Hall problem (Monty Hall problem)
- Pages relating to Muhammad (Muhammad images)
- Pages relating to Pakistan (India-Pakistan, motion)
- Pages relating to Prem Rawat, (Prem Rawat and Prem Rawat 2, motion)
- Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science (Pseudoscience)
- This includes pages relating to Homeopathy (Homeopathy) and Cold fusion (Cold fusion 2)
- Pages relating to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour (Race and intelligence)
- This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the Race and intelligence topic area (motion)
- Pages relating to Scientology (Scientology, motion)
- Pages relating to the Senkaku Islands topic area (Senkaku Islands)
- Pages relating to the September 11 attacks (September 11 conspiracy theories)
- Pages relating to the Shakespeare authorship question (Shakespeare authorship question)
- Pages relating to Transcendental meditation (Transcendental Meditation movement)
- Articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia) (Sexology)
- Pages relating to Tree shaping (Tree shaping)
- Pages relating to Waldorf education (Waldorf education)
Thank you for your understanding and your compliance. Sandstein 06:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Arbcom motion
A motion was passed in September 2012 regarding restoring and enabling edits by banned users.
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 Misplaced Pages;
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)
When the student is ready the master will appear
Watch and learn from the master. {{db-g3}} is your friend. Shred the cirque (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Who are you? Is this Echigo mole again? Akuri (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration case
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. -- # _ 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
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 Misplaced Pages. You have displayed an extensive knowledge of both key Misplaced Pages "power users" as well as awareness of obscure (to the public at least) features of Misplaced Pages policy from the beginning of your editing career. Your editing is also entirely in an area of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-space, which is forbidden by policy. Accordingly, I am blocking your account indefinitely. NW (Talk) 23:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 10:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 10:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Unblock request
- 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)
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)
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)
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 10:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- That's something only NW can comment on... Salvio 10:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 18:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages editors manage it.
- That's something only NW can comment on... Salvio 10:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. Until yesterday, using proxies at Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 23:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 23:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- So, let's summarize - Akuri says he has no internet at home, but show someone who has edited in 22 of the 24 hours of the day. Accusationsofathrownsock (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- So, let's summarize - Akuri says he has no internet at home, but show someone who has edited in 22 of the 24 hours of the day. Accusationsofathrownsock (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages 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)