User talk:Akuri: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:27, 3 May 2013

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Akuri! Thank you for your contributions. I am Sue Rangell and I have been editing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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)[reply]

I would like to broaden my editing, but I have very little time to spend at Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Akuri Akuri (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitration Action

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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,Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbate1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Akuri, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Akuri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

KillerChihuahua

Just so you know, KC's a woman. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Advise

sock posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I haven't done anything wrong. According to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 08:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)