User talk:Truthseekers

Aloha. Please do not remove suspected sock puppet notice from your talk page, doing so is vandalism, unless after ten days there is no forward movement on the case. Thanks, Iola k ana|^T 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no sock puppet notice on my page, only some drivel posted by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters explaining the three re-edit rule to me, which I had not even come close to violating yet. The sock puppet warning is on my friend's webpage, and he hasn't taken it down. -Truthseekers 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "[t]here was no sock puppet notice on my page..." is untrue. Look at the first two edits to your userpage. In the first one, Lulu placed a sock puppet notice there. In the second one, you removed it.--Anthony Krupp 12:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember removing it but if you claim it's on the edit page, then so be it. I was totally unaware that it was illegal to remove such things from my page until Kilo's warning. -Truthseekers 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remember removing it one day ago in your only edit to your user page so far? OK. Just please be aware that truthseekers, especially, should also be truthtellers.--Anthony Krupp 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to tell me I'm lying you'd do beter to come out and say it rather than trying to be clever. I already told you I had no recollection I took it down. Wikipedia is somewhat confusing when you first start using it. Or at least it was for me. Wikipedia is also very rude when you first start using it. -Truthseekers 16:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have too much going on in real life and elsewhere to worry about trying to be clever. I do try to be cautious. That is, I am willing to believe that it is possible that you really did not remember removing a sockpuppet tag one day ago, despite being called on it and subsequently claiming that there was no sock puppet notice on your page. I think any reasonable person would agree that the suspicion that you might have been lying would be a reasonable one to hold. But this by the by. I would dispute that it is a natural fact that "Wikipedia is also very rude when you first start using it." I think that depends on the person who starts using it, and how they start using it. Despite your own bumpy start, I have stated on several pages now that I think you are a different person than Kmaguir1, and that you should be welcomed to wikipedia. (I said so to Jossi.) I hope that you will read through the wikipedia guidelines and add to the encyclopedia constructively.--Anthony Krupp 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. About your edits of 16:20 and 16:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC): I see you realized your comment was premature. No further lectures today on truthtelling. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 16:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your admission that it's possible I might have not remember it. Everything is a little confusing when, within 5 minutes of you joining, people start accusing you of being something you aren't, or of not being yourself. -Truthseekers 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== Welcome!

Hello, Truthseekers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ==

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Truthseekers! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:56, 12 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request the unblocking of my Wikipedia handle as I am not a """sockpuppet""" of Kmaquir1. I cannot explain in a comprehendable manner how it is to sit here in my house, and have someone on some website tell me that I don't exist and my username is the alternate identity of someone else. There is no proof that doesn't involve a stretch of the imagination, as seen by the fact I was blocked only because it's """possible""" that this username is a sockpuppet. No one could provide sufficient, concrete evidence that I am a sock puppet, only evidence that Kmaquir1 and I are friends in real life, something that has been twisted and mis-construed to support the malicious, biased, and emotionally charged claimes of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I request unblocking so I can continue to use my own username.

Decline reason:

^T 19:42, 15 August 2006 (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.

The evidence is pretty strong, and checkuser would probably confirm you and Kmaquir1 are the same user. Did you edit from the same computer, or ones sharing an internet connection? Did Kamquir1 ask you to create an account and make edits on his/her behalf? The evidence is quite well outlined at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1. Mango juice^talk 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We both go to the same University and thus use the same internet connection sometimes. I also logged in my username at his house. He did not ask me to make an account to edit on his behalf. I created and edited because each of us had reached a consensus on an issue that did not match up with the general consensus. When they reverted my edits, I made no further edits to the page that I can recall, and simply took it to the discussion page. However, one particular user seemed fairly emotionally fueled enough to continually convict me of being a sock puppet and twist the fact Kmaquir1 and myself are real life friends into attributing my username and his to the same user. This is untruth. I don't convict him of outright lying, but he did purpetuate a seething untruth, one that is highly offensive to myself. The fact that two friends exist together and share similar interest on Wikipedia does not mean one or the other is simply a digital apparaition of the other. -Truthseekers 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmaguir1 Evidence

"User created account User:Truthseekers solely to make edit to Michel Foucault to avoid 3RR detection in insertion of homophobic original research. Edit made was identical to one made only by User:Kmaguir1, who has been skirting the edge of 3RR on above article and on Judith Butler since an earlier 3RR block. Specifically, after Kmaguir1 became aware of 3RR blocking, he made three reversions to Foucault within a few hours; about 15 minutes after the 3rd such reversion, the new account "Truthseekers" was created, and its first edit was restoration of this identical disputed material. Following that, Truthseekers went on to make two addition such reversions (but staying at 3, rather than making 4; out of an apparent concern for 3RR policy)."

I made these edits because I was present when Kmaquir1 made the initial edit. I made my account of my own volition and specifically, out of outrage at the tyrannical editing patterns of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. Apparently I did edit two other times, but I did not violate the three RR rule, and I engaged in this battle in the discussion page. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kmaguir1 has used the phrase "truthseeker" repeatedly on my user talk page, and on Talk:Judith Butler in the last couple hours. Not a lot of creativity was involved in choice of sock-puppet name. LotLE×talk 05:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"

Lie. I searched his user talk page and this combination of words was not present in any form. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Funny additional detail: "Truthseekers" second edit was to East Memphis, Memphis, which is where Kmaguir1's user page says he lives. Of course, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which Truthseekers somehow stumbled across on his 4th edit, he emphatically denies being Kmaguir1. LotLE×talk"

It's not uncommon for two people to live in or around the same area, and use the internet. Lulu was grasping at straws with this point. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

":Also: Truthseekers now edits User talk:Kmaguir1 to remove the sock-puppet template: [1]"

I don't deny this. I went to his talk page and removed it, unknowing of the Wikipedia rules at the time. When I was informed, i stopped the apparent vandalism.

"Distinctive archaism in using the word "agreeance": Truthseekers ([2]); Kmaguir1 ([?]). LotLE×talk 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)"

I didn't know similar word useage was grounds for banning. I didn't even know "agreeance" was an archaic form up until this post, or that Kmaquir1 used it as well. You learn something new everyday. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if one instance of similar word usage warrants permanent banning of IP addresses, then one consistance difference should be enough to warrant an unbanning. Notice when Kmaquir1 and I address Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. Kmaquir1 consistantly asserts and Lulu is a female, as one would deduce from the name. However, I consistantly address Lulu as a male because I have found him to be so, from visiting his user page and seeing his picture. Again, if one similarity is enough to permanently ban an IP address used by thousands of university students, then one difference should be enough to lift it. I want to make it clear though, this IP address is used by thousands of university students. apparently, if any of them ever want to access Wikipedia now, they're going to be banned forever. I know that Wikipedia is not perfect, that's why I am trying to correct this flaw. I hope that you can sympathize. -Truthseekers 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On User talk:Truthseekers, "Truthseekers" makes the comment:

There was no sock puppet notice on my page, only some drivel posted by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters explaining the three re-edit rule to me, which I had not even come close to violating yet. The sock puppet warning is on my friend's webpage, and he hasn't taken it down. -Truthseekers 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, there was a sock-puppet notice on the Truthseekers account (removed by Truthseekers as his only edit to his userpage), but a 3RR notice only on the Kmaguir1 account. The (repeated) slippage in the use of "my account" to describe the other account makes it pretty clear that this is a self-identical person rather than merely a "close friend" as purported. LotLE×talk"

I did remove the sock-puppet notice on my page, it was removed shortly after I created my account and quickly following the initial accusation. Again, I was unaware of the rules and I don't remember doing it, as I was trying to defend myself in several different places from Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. After the moderating administrator warned me, I abstained from any such further vandalism. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears Kmaguir1 has now added the sockpuppet User:Sonofhealfdane to carry on a make-believe conversation with himself on Talk:Michel Foucault. This account had made a couple earlier edits back in december, but none since until suddenly discovering the need to restore Kmaguir1's contentious original-research on the article."

I have no clue what went on here other than my friend ran across a malicious editor on the Foucalt page and engaged him. I paid little attention to that confrontation as I was pre-occupied with other things. -Truthseekers 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll also refer to the evidence page, therei s a link to a checkuser request. In said request, a ruling of "possible" is stated. How do you ban people on possibilities? Kmaquir1 will be unbanned in 10 days, but I can never use Wikipedia because it's "possible" this handle might be Kmaquir1's? That makes no sense. If someone is to be banned, then a checkuser report should have to report something more concrete than "possible". Possible leaves ""much"" room for mistakes, such as this case. -Truthseekers 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a sock puppet of Kmaguir1 as established by contribs, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1, and has been blocked indefinitely.

See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no clue what to do other than to keep petitioning. Is no one going to hear my case? I read a minute ago of further abuses by KiloLima, is no one going to investigate this???

Decline reason:

see below --Joanne B 20:52, 15 August 2006 (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.

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

I am confident that this is a sock. Not only are the contributions extremely similar, but the suspected sock puppet case and the requests for checkuser all pile up in evidence against you. Also, both emails received by me from "them" also indicate a similarity.

Request handled by: Iola k ana|^T 19:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this template from your page.

Helpme request[edit]

Is there any other way for me to appeal this permanent block on my account? I'm not a sock puppet and this administrator has effectively permanently banned me from ever editing again. Who does he answer to?

I was going to refer you to the {{unblock}} template, but I see you've already found that one. Short of that, I'm not aware of any useful method, I'm afraid. Unblock requests, especially valid ones, generally do get looked at and taken seriously, in my experience. Good luck. Luna Santin 00:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constant help requests[edit]

There is nothing that we can help you with. Your unblock requests have been denied more than once, and there is not a thing that we normal users can do to help you. Please stop using {{helpme}}. Ryūlóng 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or we may start to want you to be 'squelched'. —D a niel (‽) 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thought[edit]

I think that if you create a new username, your IP is hidden from users (unless an administrator finds it necessary to perform a checkuser). Thus, if you are not Kmaguir1, and you refrain from following his bad lead in the future, then I see no reason your new userid would be blocked. Edit away, edit constructively, don't ignore WP:CONSENSUS as you and Kmaguir1 did when you started here, and you should be fine. Of course, I could be wrong, but I think that's how it could work. I hope this helps. --Anthony Krupp 21:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that Dr. Krupp, however, I have tried and the software automatically bans any username I create. I've been trying to contact everyone I can to get this reversed but nothing has turned up yet. Lolakana is completly unwilling to rethink his decision, and very unreceptive to the fact that he is wrong. -Truthseekers 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting as a meat puppet, and are dealt the same as they are sock puppets. You haven't supplied any evidence thay you're not a meat/sock puppet. Iola k ana|^T 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible unblock[edit]

I may be willing to unblock you, but your mischeavous incivlity, or just simply naïveté, toward me makes me think otherwise. Georgewilliamherbert has been very nice, and has tried to persuade me to unblock you; I have denied this—up until now. Yet, your incivility toward me ("abusing you", that I am trying, to quote, "SQUELCH ME FROM TELLING ON HIM", whatever that means) makes me reconsider myself. I don't like to be treated like a piece of dirt, and obviously you don't, too; so, perhaps, I need an agreement from you. I need to know that you are (a) not going to be dumb enough to agree to continue meatpuppet-ing for Kmaguir1 again; (b) you're going to be nice to people, no matter what conflict erupts. Also, if you agree to this, then I also believe that you still violated WP:MEAT and you should also be blocked for ten days. Depending on what whether or not you agree (if you want to) then it would be ten days from when I first blocked you. Or, of course, you could just ignore this and remain blocked. Let me know here. I sincerely hope you consider my statement. Iola k ana•T 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]