Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/5

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


The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Talkback

Hello, Timotheus Canens. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu.
Message added 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

question about sckpuppet mosamu

am not new. mr canen is it seem or real please.please keep in mind that the major there is only one main ISP in pakistan and that is PTCL.are you relating my location.Dil e Muslim talk 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please i request you to see once again.as i told there is only one bradband isp in Pakistan and that is PTCL.Child star ip in its investigation ip shows that it is also from pakistan.Dil e Muslim talk 02:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please check sockpuppet mosamu

here i request you to check the relations between an not new and child star grown up.please it is important.

istion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.

please i request you to see once again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole

Hi. Thanks for doing the check. While that was happening another editor Boodlepounce (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) made related edits, coordinated with those of Algebraic Jordanian. I added details at the SPI report, but you already had run the check. Please could you check Boodlepounce? I have no idea why there are so many socks at the moment. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Boodlepounce suggests that you look at the way your results have been quoted in the history of Talk:Jordan algebra. Boodlepounce asks whether either of these is correct. Boodlepounce (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Considering the ineptness in copying out mathematical formulas, the coincidence in the cited pages in Upmeier's short survey, and their general inability to see that gaps and mistakes in the definitions are not just minor errors (something that Echigo mole socks have done in the past), on behavioural grounds this looks like  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Since operator algebras happens to be my expertise (I personally know or knew all the authors involved), I have written a properly sourced stub myself Jordan operator algebra. Needless to say Boodlepounce/Echigo mole has tried to edit that. It is tiresome and a bit of a waste of my time, just as happened with Ansatz (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and his misunderstanding of schlicht functions. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Boodlepounce accepts that Mathsci is entitled to his private opinion, however fallacious and incorrect it may be, and indeed Mathsci is entitled to present in a calm, orderly and accurate fashion at the appropriate page. Boodlepounce does not believe that Mathsci's private opinion, however strongly held, entitles him to misquote checkuser findings, or to behave as if his personal opinions were held by anyone else. Boodlepounce notes that here Mathsci writes "Boodlepounce/Echigo mole has tried to edit" as if the identification of the two users were an obvious and accepted truth. Boodlepounce notes that it is not, and that Mathsci's phraseology here is disingenuous. Indeed, Boodlepounce notes that it is doubly so. Boodlepounce's only edit to the page in question was to correct a trivial spelling mistake which Mathsci reverted at 0923 with a disingenuous "Echigo mole trolling" and then silently accepted at 0927: so not trolling at all. Boodlepounce is concerned here with Mathsci's handling of checkuser results, not with the minutiae of Mathsci's "case". Boodlepounce is concerned that there is a pattern of inaccuracy in some of Mathsci's comments on this case. Boodlepounce (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Socks of Geoffrey100

Thank you for recently blocking a series of socks of Geoffrey100. They got tossed into the hopper at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943 but I think they should be listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geoffrey100, where I have indicated a couple of new socks. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Different continents?

Hi. Recently on the Festermunk CU you said that it was unrelated, and that the users were on different continents. I'm very confused by your analysis so perhaps you can explain it to me. My geoocation changes throughout the day depending on my access point, and many of our users are students, who for example, travel back and forth between countries quite frequently. So, perhaps you can fill me in on how your analysis shows these people are unrelated. If anything, based on our student demographic and the use of different telecommunication providers for different access points, whether one is mobile or wired, being located on the same continent is all but meaningless. Viriditas (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"My geoocation changes throughout the day depending on my access point" Is that even allowed? Gobbleygook (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Trolling so soon? The provider controls your geolocation not the user. How could it not be allowed? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You still won't admit the fact that CU proved that your accusation turned out to be completely unfounded which at this point is just crazy. Gobbleygook (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
CU did nothing of the kind. My accusation is based purely on your behavior, not your location. Throughout any given day, my location varies from several different islands to continents to states all separated by thousands of miles. Your location says nothing whatsoever about accusations of sockpuppetry, and if you truly knew what you were doing when you registered your new account (you're not a new user) then I would expect your location to be different. That's to be expected, and isn't crazy at all. Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
" then I would expect your location to be different." Are you implying that you know the geographic location of where I registered my Wikipedia account?
"My accusation is based purely on your behavior, not your location." An admin disagrees Gobbleygook (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's very clear from looking at your timestamps that you are not in the same time zone. I knew that a long time ago, so knowing you are in a different geo region was expected. The CU did not tell me anything I didn't already know. But as you know, many universities close on April 10 and students fly home shortly thereafter. Coincidentally, you were indefinitely blocked at the time when Winter classes end in many universities. It is not an extraordinary leap to speculate that you went back to your home country when school was over and created a new account from home. Or is it more probable that two different users who have the same writing style, edit warred over the same type of material in the same topic area and then filed similar Third Opinion requests requesting input on the same types of disputes involving the same type of edits? I've heard of coincidences, but that's impossible. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
What do universities and students have to do with this? How do you even know I am a university student? Or is this something you just made up?Gobbleygook (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AE appeal

I am appealing the sanction you imposed in October. Please see the discussion here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Little green rosetta

Why exactly was Little green rosetta indefinitely blocked? I don't see anything on ArbCom about he received this block. Toa Nidhiki05 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful for others to see a brief note on the talk page telling why the block was engaged. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know as well. - MrX 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Being a returned editor if I am not mistaken. Tim can obviously confirm if that is the case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
He's a reincarnation of a blocked user. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Is the name of this blocked user a secret? - MrX 16:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to second that question; and if it is, why is it secret? Thanks. — Scott • talk 20:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was surprised to see their first edit was just under a year ago; I could have sworn they had been around for a while. I would also second what Bink said; I haven't followed their actions closely, but had the impression that they generally made positive contributions, although sometimes feuded with other editors, and the indef came as a surprise to me. Not trying to criticize the block, which I trust was based on careful consideration by ArbCom, but was just surprised to see it. a13ean (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Fasttimes68 is who was suggested on WO. Fasttimes had been blocked just three days prior to LGR registering an account and there was a credible indication in the WO discussion based on public evidence that both accounts edited from the same IP address. Presumably, the Arbs saw the discussion about that or were notified of it, and concluded that this was the case, maybe confirming it with Checkuser.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I learned something new and unpleasant today. I hope that Tim will shed some additional light on this. - MrX 17:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How bizarre. This is why I should stay in WP:Physics. a13ean (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing bizarre here at all. He was considered a suspected sock six months ago. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a surprise either... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2013/5&oldid=1144104066"