User talk:Youonlylivetwice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Youonlylivetwice! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


Tolkāppiyam[edit]

Sounds like a mess. Don't know the subject but one editor was right, the counter arguments should be added not the existing ones removed to best fit with WP:NPOV --Nate1481(t/c) 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dont edit others pages[edit]

Saedirof (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded that, but in this case it was appropriate since that edit gives the appearance of masking a fault. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

For sock puppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Youonlylivetwice. Jehochman Talk 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

RFCU case proved that I'm innocent and that I'm unrelated to any of the ips or MudaliarRFCU link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mudaliar

Decline reason:

RFCU is not magic pixie dust and in cases where a check is "inconclusive", behavior carries far more weight than RFCU results. Further, I am starting to agree with the assessment of other administrators that you're only here to bother Saedirof. — Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reasons for unblock[edit]

Rebuttal of Claims made by Admin Jehochman who has blocked me hastily and rather unethically[edit]

1. The RFCU [1] proved that I'm unrelated to any of the ips and Mudaliar that Jehochman is accusing me of.

Wrong - Inconclusive is not Unrelated. It just means that there is no way to determine whether someone is socking from the data available. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that this user has shown sophistication by using open proxies. I expect that checkuser will be worthless for tracking any of their socks. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Jehochman says that the ips are open proxies. True, but Saedirof (talk · contribs) has used the evidence provided by MarkPC (talk · contribs). The latter had whipped a case against me by quoting random ips from the articles in order to discredit me. I have mentioned this over and over again in the Check user.[2]. I think this is highly biased. For example, I can file a RFCU or a suspected sockpuppet case against MarkPC or Saedirof or even Jehochman along with open proxies. This has been deliberately done by MarkPC alias Saedirof who was blocked for using open proxies under the alias Redlance. Check: RFCU [3]. Saedirof was never cleared of sock puppetry and remained soft blocked for a week. Check his block log [4]

That's because MarkPC was unblocked almost two weeks later after jpgordon reviewed the CU evidence. Further, if he *did* use the name Redlance, then he would have had to register it; Redlance isn't registered. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Next Jehochman goes on to conclude that the person filing the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Youonlylivetwice, that is Saedirof (talk · contribs) is credible. Saedirof (talk · contribs) was blocked for using socks according to [5]. Only MarkPC (talk · contribs) was cleared while Saedirof (talk · contribs) remained blocked.

See above - MarkPC was unblocked almost a week after Saedirof's block expired. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Further adminThatcher confirmed my suspicion that there is a high possibility that Saedirof (talk · contribs) is a sock of MarkPC (talk · contribs) as they're both editing from the same ip. Accordingly I was the one who first filed a suspected sock case at [6]. See all references that I have provided there that clearly shows that Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the same location. But on the contrary Jehochman concludes that I'm a single purpose attack account because my first edit was a check user. What is wrong with that? Do all editors have to make a couple of thousand edits before filing a CU? Sure I have no edits but that does not make me any less credible.

Filing a RFCU on your very first edit implies very strongly that you're here only to cause trouble - a new user would generally be oblivious to its existence. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. In point 3 in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Youonlylivetwice, Jehochman compares two diffs and says that the evidence against me "checks out". There is nothing in common between the two diffs except for Kaikolar Devadasis. In my diff I am quoting directly from the reference [7], whereas in the other diff the user is stating his opinion. This is really bad.

This is one I can't answer; I'll ask Jehochman to elaborate. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The users show an obsessive, common interest in this topic, edit warring endlessly, failing to use dispute resolution correctly, and turning Wikipedia into an ethnic battle ground. This will not be allowed to continue. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Further why has Saedirof (talk · contribs) who uses the evidences provided by MarkPC (talk · contribs), who was also confirmed as MarkPC (talk · contribs) in RFCU [8] and was also suspected of using open proxies under the alias Redlance (talk · contribs) let go even after admin Thatcher recently(after {{user|MarkPC was cleared) confirmed that they're both editing from the same work place (check [9] for detailed proofs), not been blocked but I have been blocked when I have nothing in common with Mudaliar and for allegedly using open proxies. Does wikipedia promote double standards in certain cases when the person doing it is an admin?

Again, MarkPC was exonerated, and Redlance is not registered to begin with. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. So, if I disagree with a user then all I have to do is to mimic his edits via open proxies and then file a suspected sock case->Jehochman reviews it ->cleverly concludes that they are open proxies ->thus concludes that person filing is credible->and finally blocks the user against whom the case is filed as a sock based upon some bad diffs and the open proxies->he further states that the check user is not necessary when in fact the RFCU result has come out negative.

The RFCU came out "Inconclusive", not "Unrelated". Inconclusive just means, as I have said above, that there isn't enough evidence one way or another. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This blows.

I think I deserve to be unblocked.

Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Rebuttals above. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 09:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Wrong analysis by both Jéské and Jehochman and totally lame reason given by Jehochman that points towards the latter's poor ethics

Decline reason:

Nope. Attacking admins doesn't work well as means of getting unblocked by admins. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wrong claims by admin Jéské above[edit]

Note: If you're not admin Jéské, then first read Rebuttal of Claims made by Admin Jehochman above before you read the following.

1. Jéské has replied above in points 2 and 3 above that MarkPC (talk · contribs) was unblocked almost a week after Saedirof (talk · contribs)'s block expired. This is absolutely false. See the block logs: block log [10] of MarkPC (talk · contribs) and block log [11] of Saedirof. Saedirof (talk · contribs) blocked on February 9, 2008 for a week and it expired only on February 16, 2008 MarkPC (talk · contribs) banned on February 9, 2008 but unblocked on February 14, 2008. But Saedirof (talk · contribs) remained blocked. Why was MarkPC (talk · contribs) unblocked but not Saedirof (talk · contribs) ?

2. Saedirof (talk · contribs) was not cleared and remained blocked because he was still suspected of coming under the open proxies under the alias Redlance (talk · contribs). In 2 and 6 above Jéské claims that Redlance (talk · contribs) isn't even registered and hence this cannot be true. Check the contributions and see for yourself. Click on contribs in Redlance (talk · contribs) and then check the RFCU link:[12], scroll all the way down where it says that Redlance (talk · contribs) only edited via open proxies at the very end.

3. In '6 above Jéské simply claims that MarkPC (talk · contribs) was exonerated by upon JpGordon (talk · contribs). This was done on February 14, 2008 as shown by his block log. But admin Thatcher (talk · contribs) after reviewing the RFCU again on February 27, 2008 has stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thatcher&diff=prev&oldid=194301774, Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the exact same location much more recently. Talk about using old evidence.

4. Moreover,Jehochman calls my account as a single purpose account in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Saedirof. What do you call MarkPC (talk · contribs) who has solely edit warred on article Devadasi. No go ahead click on his contributions and see, there is nothing else he has edited really.

Talk about a coincidence: I file for RFCU, and MarkPC (talk · contribs) gets blocked as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs)} and then Saedirof (talk · contribs) acts innocent and uses the evidence provided by MarkPC (talk · contribs) as confessed by him in my suspected sock case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Youonlylivetwice and Thatcher (talk · contribs) also states that MarkPC (talk · contribs) and Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit from the same ip location. Add to it that MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit wars on article Devadasi while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit wars on Mudaliar and Sengunthar at the same time and both delete the exact same references right down to the last letter. This is BS.

To Jéské:Is this a joke? If you don't even have the basic courtesy or even the patience to review what I'm stating, then why do you even bother replying to my unblock request?

Lame reason given by Jehochman for my block: extremely unethical[edit]

In 5[13] above Jehochman states that based upon the diffs [14] and [15] he has concluded in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Youonlylivetwice(check point 3 in conclusion) that I have failed to use dispute resolution correctly. The first diff is mine while the second diff is is Mudaliar (talk · contribs). I have stated an academic reference and quoted the exact sentence which is not attacking anyone while Mudaliar (talk · contribs) is openly abusing the other person. I see nothing in common between the two. You tell me to use dispute resolution then you block me when I cite academic references. Is Jehochman being serious? Then he says he blocked me because I have a common interest as Mudaliar (talk · contribs) because I have edited the same article. It cannot get any worse than this. Then everyone who has been editing the articles must be blocked as a sock of Mudaliar (talk · contribs). This is as lame as it gets. Moreover talk about common interests between MarkPC (talk · contribs) and Saedirof (talk · contribs) as explained in 4 above. Jehochman is heavily biaised and giving extremely lame reasons to justify my block.

Youonlylivetwice (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your posts only serves to reinforce my judgment that this account was set up for the purpose of disruption. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the reverts done by MarkPC (talk · contribs) alias Saedirof (talk · contribs) who only reverts edits on article Devadasi while Saedirof (talk · contribs) reverts edits on article Mudaliar and Sengunthar at the same time. These are the very same articles for which both Mudaliar (talk · contribs) and Venki123 (talk · contribs) were blocked: check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mudaliar-Venki123. I was the first one to bring this case up both in my RFCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Saedirof against Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) and again in the suspected sock case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Saedirof claiming that both are socks of banned users. Check the RFCU that I filed. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jehochman: My tone has nothing to do with it. I've just been wronged by you based upon poor judgement. Now you threaten me to stand down when I'm still exercising extreme civility? At the very least, review the diffs that I'm providing above rather than analysing my tone. Each and every point made above has concrete evidence and diffs to bolster my arguments. Everyone has a chance to appeal whereas you did not even give me a chance to reply to the suspected sock case filed against me. Just because you made a wrong decision doesn't mean you have to stick with it. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3rd UNBLOCK REQUEST REMOVED] - this is abuse of the unblock template. I will protect the page now. Jehochman Talk 17:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Jpgordon (talk · contribs) rather than reading through my proofs, irresponsibly claims that I'm attacking an admin. So what if you're an admin, don't admins make mistakes or am I not allowed to point them out or are you too proud to admit it? Youonlylivetwice (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Youonlylivetwice&oldid=1089121103"