Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 18 May 2013

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

Request reason:

I request a review. The only reason given is "Please see: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole". The only reason on that page is that another editor regards my edits as "trolling". I strenuously deny that, but am not allowed to reply on that page. My suggestions were entirely constructive. If other editors disagree, they can say so. I can hardly believe that the editor who complained about me even read those comments. Is this the normal way to treat an editor who goes to the WikiProject pages to start a sensible discussion? What was I expected to do? Hyperbaric oxygen (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reason for the block. Even if all the edits of a sockpuppet account are constructive, it is still a sockpuppet of a blocked user - in this case, a community banned user - and is in violation of policy regardless of anything else. In order to be unblocked a clear explanation of how this account is not Echigo mole (talk · contribs) needs to be provided (and based on my looking things over, I agree that this fits with behavioral evidence that it is). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 15 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.

Your problem, Echigo, is that Mathsci knows a lot more maths than you do. --Anthony Bradbury 16:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin: Contrarily to what is asserted in the SPI demand by Mathsci there is no evidence of trolling in this user edits. Only his post to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics‎‎ about the structure of articles about algebra is not clear. If written by an experienced editor like Echigo, this is trolling. If its author is an experienced mathematician, but an unexperienced wikipedian, who is unhappy with the quality of mathematical articles (many are indeed awful), this is not trolling. Thus, conclude of sockpuppetry may not, IMO, been done only on the content of the contributions and Mathsci accusations. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how Anthony Bradbury's comment is intended to help resolve the question. Does he claim mathematical expertise himself? If so by all means let him give an independent and unprejudiced opinion on my edits. If not, he is simply echoing what another user has, mistakenly, written. The only "evidence" against me was that one user thought my comments were trolling. They were not, and I rather doubt that user ever read them: he simply assumed they were trolling. Other editors, presumably competent to comment, have not agreed with him. The only further "evidence" at the "investigation" is an administrator saying "Nothing much to say really". This is simply one big mess. Hyperbaric oxygen (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Again blocked by a checkuser (Timotheus Canens). If he's going to make these fatuous unblock requests while creating 3 or 4 new sock accounts every day, perhaps it might be an idea in future to block without talk page access. Echigo mole is inept at mathematics, as his failed attempts to write down quite simple axioms for a Jordan C* algebra show. He picked a so-so source, missing the classic textbook written by one of the main people involved. Echigo mole has already followed R.e.b.'s edits as the absurd Julian Birdbath, when he tried to edit articles on conformal field theory and vertex algebras. He did so again today. He's no better in articles on Jordan algebras or univalent functions. The point is, and this is what perhaps D. Lazard is missing, Echigo mole/A.K. Nole always picks a specialist subject, usually neglaected, where I'm creating content after very little has been added for very long periods. If D. Lazard had seen the nonsensical articles on Aix-en-Provence that Echigo mole wrote (4 have been deleted), he might form a different opinion. Perhaps The Bulldog and spanking literature were a bit more within Echigo mole's expertise. There were about 10 or 15 socks involved there. In The Bulldog Echigo suggested that a Marijuana Café was due to open in Aix ... Mathsci (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

All of which is beside the point. I assert that my edits (not anyone else's, mine) are not trolling. Briefly they consist of comments about how to explain the slightly obscure point of terminology that a "noncommutative" algebra can in fact be commutative in some cases, how to handle the different but equivalent axiomatic systems given in an article and in its references, and a piece for discussion on how to organise articles on classes of algebraic structures. Mathsci asserts that this is "trolling" and uses it to "prove" that I am a well-known troll. In fact, other equally competent editors have not seen it as trolling, which tends to prove the opposite. Does Mathsci positively assert that he has carefully read my postings, considered them and that he is convinced that in his professional opinion they cannot possibly have been written for any constructive purpose? Or would he care to admit that he jumped into a premature and erroneous conclusion and does not wish to be seen to have made a mistake? Hyperbaric oxygen (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK IP that you used afterwards to agitate about your reverted edit on lots of user talk pages has also been blocked. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this account must be blocked if it is really a sockpuppet of Echigo mole or of any other account. But: 1/ Mathsci accusations do not contain any argument on the evidence of this supposed sockpuppetry. 2/ Checkusers do not confirm this supposed sockpuppetry. 3/ Contrarily to Mathsci assertions, all edits by Hyperbaric oxygen are constructive; the posts to some user talk pages (mentioned by mathsci) by the UK IP are normal messages for a new editor that is reverted and blocked for reasons that are obscure for him, if he really a new editor (how many new editors know about sockpuppetry?). D.Lazard (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

D. Lazard is ignoring the, history and pattern of coordinated socking as well as the role of checkusers. Why would an IP from the UK suddenly spring up to add trolling messages on talk pages about Hyperbaric oxygen, even before he was blocked? Why would 20 or so accounts from the UK suddenly start editing articles in the category "People from Aix-en-Provence" in March and April and be unearthed out-of-the blue by checkusers? Individually those accounts might appear fine, but they were the same person. The same here, about 6 or 7 recent socks all editing articles on Jordan algebras out-of-the-blue and commenting on WikiProject Mathematics. None of these are good faith edits and it is the same old pattern of wikihounding. Currently, whatever D. Lazard's private views on one isolated account, this is a period of hyperactivity. The pattern of long term abbuse is evidenced in the archived SPI pages. It started with A.K.Nole editing Butcher group , in as naive a way as Hyperbaric oxygen. The edits of this particular community banned user, in project space and user talk pages, have been discussed at length by arbitrators and resulted in an arbcom motion about restoring his reverted edits. Here he gravitated towards out-of-the-way subjects edited by me and R.e.b. (as he has does in the past) even inventing the trolling username Algebraic Jordanian. SPI reports on registered accounts are usually made with requests for checkuser. The editing is from the UK, as is the spelling. It's easy enough to find examples of where this user has attempted to start arbcom cases or to intervene in others, has invented sockpuppet categories for me, started SPi reports on his own sockpuppets and so on. I don't think D. Lazard has any special new insight into the sockpuppetry issues here. There is zero probability that Hyperbaric oxygen will be unblocked, particularly because of the subsequent IP trolling. The editing by these accounts is never viewed in isolation and SPI reports necessarily involve showing prior behaviour being repeated, as is manifestly the case here. The account G.W.Zinbiel might have looked innocent at the time, but he made trolling edits about Loday and there was coordinated editing by other socks on WikiProject Mathematics. I hope that helps. Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci private opinion about my supposed ignorance is out of scope here. Nevertheless the only rationale that Mathsci provides for asserting that this particular account is a sockpuppet is that there are presently a lot of sockpuppet activities from UK. This is a weak argument. D.Lazard (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to show support for community banned users, D.Lazard, please find somewhere else to do it. (Perhaps your sandbox might be a first start.) Here, on the user talk page of an obvious sock, you have crossed a line. Please see Boodlepounce (talk · contribs · logs · block log) to see Echigo mole's currrent antics elsewhere, related to this user. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Further request

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I am sorry to have to make a further request, it seems that my previous request was not clear enough. I request to be unblocked on the grounds that I was blocked for being someone else, when I believe that it is reasonably clear that I am in fact not that person. It is hard to prove a negative, epecially since I was only able to make a handful of edits before being reported, but from what I can see, the Echigo Mole vandal is described as being mathematically incompetetent, clueless, only trolling and so forth. The few edits I was able to make have not been described that way by members of the Mathematics Project, and indeed at least one other editor has come here to support my edits as sensible and constructive. (I agree that one particular editor has, rather vociferously, argued that my edits are all trolling, but I submit that he is in a minority.) If Echigo Mole is a clueless troll, and the consensus is that my edits are neither clueless nor trolling, then that seems to be the best evidence I can offer that I am not them (indeed, I find it hard to see what sort of evidence I could possibly submit in this situation apart from the opinions of other mathematics editor). So, please, consider unblocking me and allow me o continue to edit constructively. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I am sorry to have to make a further request, it seems that my previous request was not clear enough. I request to be unblocked on the grounds that I was blocked for being someone else, when I believe that it is reasonably clear that I am in fact not that person. It is hard to prove a negative, epecially since I was only able to make a handful of edits before being reported, but from what I can see, the Echigo Mole vandal is described as being mathematically incompetetent, clueless, only trolling and so forth. The few edits I was able to make have not been described that way by members of the Mathematics Project, and indeed at least one other editor has come here to support my edits as sensible and constructive. (I agree that one particular editor has, rather vociferously, argued that my edits are all trolling, but I submit that he is in a minority.) If Echigo Mole is a clueless troll, and the consensus is that my edits are neither clueless nor trolling, then that seems to be the best evidence I can offer that I am not them (indeed, I find it hard to see what sort of evidence I could possibly submit in this situation apart from the opinions of other mathematics editor). So, please, consider unblocking me and allow me o continue to edit constructively. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I am sorry to have to make a further request, it seems that my previous request was not clear enough. I request to be unblocked on the grounds that I was blocked for being someone else, when I believe that it is reasonably clear that I am in fact not that person. It is hard to prove a negative, epecially since I was only able to make a handful of edits before being reported, but from what I can see, the Echigo Mole vandal is described as being mathematically incompetetent, clueless, only trolling and so forth. The few edits I was able to make have not been described that way by members of the Mathematics Project, and indeed at least one other editor has come here to support my edits as sensible and constructive. (I agree that one particular editor has, rather vociferously, argued that my edits are all trolling, but I submit that he is in a minority.) If Echigo Mole is a clueless troll, and the consensus is that my edits are neither clueless nor trolling, then that seems to be the best evidence I can offer that I am not them (indeed, I find it hard to see what sort of evidence I could possibly submit in this situation apart from the opinions of other mathematics editor). So, please, consider unblocking me and allow me o continue to edit constructively. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hyperbaric oxygen (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All Hyperbaric oxygen's edits followed mine in the specialist and rarely edited topic of Jordan algebras. Already we had his previous sock Algebraic Jordanian (talk · contribs · logs · block log) editing the same group of articles. All the edits were trolling and of a trivial superficial nature. I suggest that Hyperbaric oxygen's talk page access should now be revoked before he wastes more time. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The only true fact in the preceding post by Mathsci is that most Hyperbaric oxygen edits are related to Jordan algebras. But Hyperbaric has never edited Jordan algebra and the related articles that Hyperbaric oxygen has edited have either never been edited by Mathsci (Okubo algebra) or, in the case of Talk:Noncommutative Jordan algebra, the only Mathsci's edits consist in removing constructive edits by Hyperbaric oxygen. I repeat what I have already said: I ignore if Hyperbaric oxygen is a sockpuppet, but nothing in his edits allows to suppose that. Mathsci find them trivial and superficial. But it seems that he his the only Wikipedian that qualifies in this way the fact of adding relevant wikilinks or to discuss in the talk page the accuracy of the used terminology (that is the summary of Hyperbaric oxygen edits). In other words, unless it is proved that Hyperbaric oxygen is a sockpupped, I support his request. D.Lazard (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock