Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Panairjdde

Numerous IP addresses, including User:151.47.126.70, User:151.47.99.146

Evidence

Repeated edits made as Panairjdde.
Admits in comments, & on user page; not hiding his identity at all.

User: Panarjedde

Evidence

Continuing edits made as Panairjdde.
Admits in comments to contributions; not hiding his identity at all.

Comments

This user was banned for 24 hours for making disruptive edits; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Panairjdde blocked for details. User appears to want to keep resetting his ban by creating socks. Sheesh, just go to bed, spend the day outdoors & away from the computer, & it will all be over. You badly need some time away from Wikipedia, Dude! -- llywrch 01:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Panairjdde does not longer exists, since the account was closed. How is it possible to be sockpuppets of a non-existing account? Is the use of a paternalistic tone really needed?--151.44.36.230 10:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (Panarjedde, whose account was blocked indefinitely and has no other way to answer that using an anonymous account)[reply]

And what about this account: User:Panarjedde.

BTW, Pan, you cannot "close down" an account, you can only chose to no longer use it ... which doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions, regardless under what identity you operate. I am sorry that I misjudged you when I first encountered you on Talk:Montanism - you were right contentwise and wrong behaviourwise and now the misbehaviour has won the upper hand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long shall I wait to see my account unblocked? When the block ends?--151.47.117.140 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limit your anon edits to your talk page, WP:AN/I, & other pages relevant to your case, & the block on your original account will expire. If you want to change your use name, either post to Wikipedia:Changing username or the WikiEN-L mailing list. However, the block will be transferred to your new user name. -- llywrch 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already blocked me "undefinitely", why should I ask for a new account, to see it blocked undefinitely too? Are you jocking?--151.47.76.121 23:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aslo, do you understand what you read? That account is closed, how can anyone ask to move a closed account?--151.47.76.121 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that account indefinitely because you already had your original account active. Explain the situation to another Admin at one of those two fora, & perhaps they may see things differently. Or not. However, you may find other Admins more responsive if you respect your 24 hour block before posting there. -- llywrch 23:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write it bigger, so you can understand it: PANAIRJDDE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN CLOSED, NOBODY CAN LOGON. How can a closed account be "active"? And how can I "respect [my] 24 hour block", if you blocked me indefinitely?!--151.47.76.121 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you stopped bashing your head needlessly against the wall for a moment, it might occur to you that another Admin could intervene & revert that block. That Admin, of course, might ask me if I objected; but my response would be to point to my explanation for blocking you, your voluminous comments & edits since I blocked you, your repeated attempts to circumvent the block, & ask the Admin if she/he were comfortable having you back on Wikipedia.

But didn't you say you were leaving Wikipedia? Or have you changed your mind? This may seem to be mocking, but there is no other way to put it: decide which it is & stick to your decision. This will be very persuasive to whichever Admin you ask to help you. And here is some useful advice: don't petition either Tony Sideway or David Gerard to help you. They are far less nice than me. -- llywrch 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that. I just said I closed the account and moved on, but if you block me indefinitely, how could I move on at all?

As regards other admins, you blocked me indefinitely and I should ask to someone else? You should provide me with good reasons for this indefinite block.--151.47.76.121 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked. Iola k ana|^T 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:LimWRtacCHsua

Evidence

Appeared soon after Panairjdde stopped posting from anon IP addresses, & began to make same kind of edits on same articles that Panairjdde had been making.
Appears to edit from same time zone as Panairjdde has. (Graphs showing the times users edit in are currently disabled on Kate's & Interiot's editcount tools, making conclusive determinations difficult.)

Comment

In the past, Panairjdde has openly admitted to using specific socks. So if this user clearly denies being Panairjdde, I'll accept that I was mistaken & remove the tag. However, I expect this user to behave far more maturely & reasonably than Panairjdde, & not to make the same mistakes.

I am not Panairjdde, since Panairjdde account has been closed.--LimWRtacCHsua 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That answer evades the intent of my question. Is this account used by the same person who has used the Panairjdde account? If they are used by different people, what relevance is it whether the Panairjdde is open or closed? -- llywrch 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there are no persons on WP, but only users. Any policy based on persons is bound to be based on speculation.

What "began to make same kind of edits on same articles that Panairjdde had been making" does mean? You stated "[Panairidde was] making disruptive edits"; which of my edits is "disruptive" in your standards?--LimWRtacCHsua 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the mood to play games here. To put this in words you can understand, you're obviously the same person who has edited under the name. Because you still have not respected the 24 hour block I put you under, this account is also blocked. -- llywrch 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to show me the disruptive edits I made, and the answer is a block? Nice behaviour, be proud of yourself.--151.47.115.171 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthemore, on what proofs you decided this block, on your "sensation"? Or did you reallyy found some evidence? To put this in words you can understand, I am not Panairjdde.--151.47.115.171 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the same person as he (or she) that used the Panairjdde account, which is what matters. Accounts are only supposed to have one user and one user is supposed to have only one account. It's a one to one function. If broken without special (e.g. for a bot, an account where you represent your company, represent wikipedia, etc.), then you can and will be banned. I am trying to reason with you, Panairjdde, as I find this whole matter rather ridiculous, but you will have to cooperate with others and stop your disruptive edits if you want to continue editing on Wikipedia. I must say that your position is becoming more and more untenable; you just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Stop digging for a second and think about what you are doing and its effects. I am posting my note to you on one of your IP talk pages below:

Panairjdde, I'm warning you to discontinue your insertion of AD into every single article. You are clearly using it to make a point, and you're only going to turn more people against you. I had originally thought that Llywrch went to hard on you for what you did (avoiding a 24 hour block), but you're starting to prove him right. What you're doing right now is tantamount to wikistalking, a practice that is highly frowned upon and very bannable. I urge you to simply let the block ride out. Do something else for a day or two (or a week, if the block is that long, which it could be if you continue). Read a book, play outside, you can even read Wikipedia articles, but stay away from editing. Trust me, if you simply let the block take its natural course instead of breaking the rules, you'll find Wikipedia much more accomodating. I would let the block first and then try to discuss the issue of using or not using AD/CE and BC/BCE in the proper forums, rather than changing all dates to one format or the other. You may think that you're proving to others how silly the rule is (on which I'm not going to comment), but you're really turning people against your cause. The indefinite blocking of your username is not written in stone, mind you. If you show good behavior and rationality, instead of all this sockpuppetry, then your original username will probably be restored after the appropriate block length expires. I'm entreating you to stop this because I think you have good potential as an editor, and I'd hate to see someone get permabanned and leave the project over some silliness like what date format should be used. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about what you are doing. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde, just in case...

Dear Yom, I would like to tell you the beginning this story from my POV:

This all started when I applyed the Manual of Style and got against a stubborn User:Codex Sinaiticus for Montanism. I tried to discuss this matter, but nobody wanted to give his opinion on the matter.
I discussed with CS, but he kept twisting the rules to his favour.
I avoided Montanism and got over in my usual routine of MoS application, and eager users reverted my edits not because they were against them (some said they agreed with me), but because I should "stop the edit war" first.
I returned to Montanism, and asked for a third opinion, the answer was "stop the edit war".
I asked a RFC, and the few editors coming (I don't know if because the RFC) said "stop the edit war".
I went to MoS talk page and proposed an edit whose aim was to make clearer something was already there, but the only persons discussing the matter (llywrch and another) just said every editor is free to do whatever he wants, as regards using redundant AD.
I returned to the Montanism talk page, and told them I had found a section of MoS that clearly showed I was right, the only answer was "stop the edit war! wait a week".
I edited Honorius (emperor) (an article I contributed to in the past) to include AD the way CodexSinaiticus and all the others involved claimed was in the powers of an editor. It was to make a point, I admit, but in a non-disruptive way (and this is true however you read WP:POINT). llywrch (an admin involved in the discussion) blocked User:Panairjdde for 24 hours. Maybe you already know the end of the story

So far I witnessed a lot of editors eager to formally protect Wikipedia (those who reverted, those who appeared to petition against the edit war, the one who immediately blocked because he tought I made a disruptive edit, all those prompt to block sockpuppets, and so on), but nobody who had really cared about the content (and I'm sorry, but if you think this matter is "ridiculous", you are among those who don't understand), and stubborn users who clutter WP of ADs just to make a point (have you seen CS talk page?). So, I was a little angry because I felt the block was wrong, but the whole point with evading the block was to show people that it was only a matter of principle, to tell them that content is more important than "form" (blocking, endless procedures to settle a matter against someone who doesn't want to collaborate, and so on): I closed Panairjdde account (something nobody cares to understand - I can't log on anymore).

The funny thing is that until now, a few people, including you, showed to tell me they agreed with me or my position somehow, sometime, but that I was behaving bad, now. Where all those editors were when the matter was under discussion?

Now, I still say it is a matter of principle. That llywrch blocked me for 24 hours (and now indefinitely, even if he still refers to a 24 hours block) is not important, I can do without WP for one day, one week, one month, or forever; that he acted as an admin with an important action (the 24 hours block) without understanding the situation is by far more important to me. I see him like a policeman that sees a thief robbing an old woman, and starts shooting around: even if he gets the thief, he risked the life of innocent people around him, and this is by far more important than avoiding the theft.

Now, what I want? Not Panairjdde account back, since it is closed. Not Panarjedde back, since I can avoid editing at all. I want that my work of months is saved, that "my" Wikipedia grows well. This means, to me, that easy-trigger admins like llywrch do actually think before acting, weighting the formal break of the rules (and I still maintain I did not break them in the beginning) against the real problem they are watching to. This also means that those asked to give a third opinion really want to give a third opinion on the matter (I had other problems with "third opinion" in the past - see Talk:Constantine XI, if you like). This also means a more serious behaviour of all those who enter into a dispute resolution.

If, in the process of obtaining this, I have to dig the hole deeper and deeper, I shall accept the consequences: if I did not do those edits to Ethiopia page you would not have showed here, right? But be sure I shall "fight" this till the end, because it is important to me.

Best regards.-- The person behind Panairjdde/Panarjedde

All blocked. Iola k ana|^T 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]