• Archive 1 (1/24/07 - 6/13/07)
• Archive 2 (6/15/07 - 07/31/07)

I don't know if Kephera975 is using sockpuppets, or not.

That said, I have entered comments on that SSP report as well as the one at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd). My comments were not directly about Kephera975 though, they were about User:C00483033 and User:Rondus the other two user names who are listed in both of those reports, and who are almost certainly both the same person.

One thing that makes me wonder what's really going on is that User:C00483033 and User:Rondus do seem to be socks of User:Frater FiatLux, but in the contribs I thought I saw an argument between FiatLux and Kephra. I can't find that diff now though, so maybe I misread it.

Since I'm not certain I feel I should be conservative in my comments on this unless more evidence appears, though the SPA issue is clear anyway. --Parsifal _Hello 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about his new "bad faith" SSP report. I've entered comments there. Hopefully when the remaining one or two AfDs are completed this will settle down. If he continues his disruptive editing on the article pages after the AfD, please let me know, since I don't usually watch those pages. --Parsifal _Hello 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Parfisal. I think it's pretty obvious that User:C00483033 and User:Rondus are the same individuals, but the SSP report for Kephera975 came back negative last time. Maybe you could post to checkuser? I don't know, but I don't think these three are Kephera975. Btw, thanks for clarification on yours and GlassFETs edits: I have reaffirmed my original comment on the case re that you're not the same individuals. Since the case was raised as an accusation of sockpuppetry, and nothing else, it should be easy enough for admins to conclude. Coldmachine^Talk 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... Just a heads up on some recent comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. - you might want to take a look. --Parsifal _Hello 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS -Would you check out this conversation on my talk page about the pair of socks? Your name was mentioned so I would like to get your input before proceeding any further with the idea under discussion. You might be interested in the earlier comments in that same section too. --Parsifal _Hello 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll send you the link, probably in a couple hours. --Parsifal _Hello 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been posted here on WP:ANI.

You may also wish to take a look at this, if you feel like one more click. Good evening... --Parsifal _Hello 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again... --Parsifal _Hello 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS - the deletion page has had some really strange comments from SqueakBox ... I really do think this calls for an admin review of the procedure in general, and El C and his sidekick SqueakBox in particular. Something is very wrong in this isse. All issues aside regarding the article - and it really does need to be rewritten from scratch - this is not good enough. Take a look and give your comments please. docboat 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at User:Frater FiatLux's contribution history.[1] It's very interesting. There is a year hiatus. Look at User:Kephera975's contribution history [2] Almost the same hiatus. User:Kephera975's first edit was in February 2006, about the time the multiple socks that were caught started -- the User:Ekajati/User:999 socks -- and the MO is definitely similar. Here is User:Frater FiatLux talking to User:Kephera975 but it is over a year ago. [3] However, notes from User:Baba Louis (another User:Ekajati/User:999 sock) and User:999 are on the same page. I don't know what to think as one of the things they used to do was post on each other's pages. Regards, Mattisse 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to think. Just idle speculation. I had not been paying attention to JMax555 so I had no ideas regarding him. It is interesting though that JMax555 contacts 999 [4] and User:SynergeticMaggot [5] (who at one point was accused of being a sock puppet of User:999 and who stopped editing at the same time as the sockpuppet ring was caught in February 2007) (this page also contains a posting from User:Hanuman Das (who was tight with 999 -- cross postings and such and who, to me, seemed behind it all). I got very good at looking at patterns in my particular case, but it was ultimately a bureaucrat who stepped in and caught them. The only reason I am even aware of your problem is that the Golden Dawn articles were part of a group of articles on my watchlist that the socks from my situation almost always edited extensively. It was a way of trying to detect new socks. Once the group was caught we had our eyes open for new aliases. We are quite sure that User:Jefferson_Anderson was one, but he bailed out before we could shut him down. So those socks are around somewhere. But this kind of thing can drive you crazy. You have to spend a lot of time in detecting patterns and is it worth it? I think I looked back to the beginning of one of the Golden Dawn articles and found User:999 created it. Go figure. So, what makes sense? I don't know. Regards, Mattisse 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Good work! You did it! Caught a nice little nest of them. Mattisse 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second the congratulations! I was beginning to think nobody was ever going to look at the reports. Well, better late than never. GlassFET 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. Reliable sources are obviously much better than just somebody claiming something on the web somewhere. DreamGuy 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the duplicate and Rebirthing-Breathwork articles. Still think it needs some work as it seems to be composed of lists rather than paragraphs for a lot of it. Anyway, feel free to take a look.:)Merkinsmum 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply- I merged everything in, no content is lost, all the edit history is there in the redirect, I could just rename the other page I suppose. Redundant redirects are easy to delete/or just keep as redirect I think. Anyway- it's all still here so I can be bold:)Merkinsmum 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I merged into the R.B one is because it already had the proper name.Merkinsmum 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be at the name people will search (not ones with (duplicate) in the name etc. I think it is at the right page now, and there's a redirect. But I'll ask an admin on their talk page, because I too am unsure lol:)Merkinsmum 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to say that thought there is a redirect from the duplicate article, all the edit history is still preserved there, nothing has gone and it is compliant with the G-thingy. I merged what little extra content there was in, so Rebirthing-Breathwork is not a lower quality article than the other one or owt.:)Merkinsmum 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Just wanted to let you know that there are some folks out here that really appreciate your diligence and tenacity keeping the troll-edits at bay on the BKWSU article. Please let me know if you have any advice or need any assistance from me. I can also be emailed via Wikipedia. I have been trying to deal with one issue at a time but the talk page gets covered in trolling quicker than a garden gets covered in Russian vine weed! Bksimonb 06:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS

Just letting you know - I've been swamped with off-wiki stuff, and also some annoying wikihassles unrelated to the fraternal orders topics. I wonder if Wikipedia is getting too big and filling up with problems.

Well, anyway, not to go off on that stuff... I've been reading the King book and will post some info soon. It's pretty interesting, but his timeline is unclear.

What he does say though is that A.O. is not a "new" order, it was Mathers' new name for the Outer Order, replacing the name "Golden Dawn", at least for his lineage.

One thing that is sure, King never mentions the prefix of Rosecrucian Order of A.O., it always was just Alpha et Omega.

I'll post some text when I can find a short quote - his writing is wordy so it's hard to pick out a good summary. --Parsifal _Hello 09:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPSOS, I have reported Rondus and the other activity at the AO talk page to an administrator. Please keep cool in your responses to the disruptive users, since that page will be reviewed. Best Wishes. --Parsifal _Hello 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note. I didn't report it on a board, I informed an individual admin. I don't know if he'll take it on or not, but there's a good chance he'll look into it.

It's hard to get action from AN/I. There aren't enough admins and they're overloaded. Continue your report for now, and try to use telegraph-style writing with bullets and very clear requests for actions. Be extra polite in every interaction with the socks, firm and correct as the iChing might advise. I saw some pretty upset posts from you on the talk page, which is understandable. But look at them from the perspective of a reviewing admin. You might want to redact a bit, I don't know. Stay calm, it'll work out eventually. I'll be offline/online unpredictably for a while now, but leave a message on my page if something needs attention and I'll try to get it to it. --Parsifal _Hello 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like it at any point, wave your Ippy wand at Unicursal_hexagram, just have a feeling you could easily clean it up/make it better.:)Merkinsmum 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid getting into any unnecessary revert wars with User:Watchtower Sentinel -- I notice both of you have had repeated problems with each other, recently, frequently reverting each other's talk pages and such, and I'm not convinced that this is productive or likely to resolve anything. In the future, I'd recommend reporting such incidents to the admin noticeboards, instead, if they are truly that urgent. In particular, if you revert his talk page again, at any point in the immediate future, I'm going to have to block you. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was that advice you gave me a little while age about overreacting? And you were right! Why should we let someone else control our behavior with their remarks, however rude or wrongful? Sincerely, Mattisse 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond first before you change things - Mdd 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can take some time to talk about it instead of changing all the articles I'm working on. I have been doing some comparing featured articles and I've seen that you are probably right.

But I have also seen that what I call "literature" is mostly called "Further reading". So instead of making all these half corrections, let's first talk about it. - Mdd 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I hope to hear from you again. - Mdd 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit some of these editors do seem erm, of very like mind to each other:)Merkinsmum 00:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that... IPSOS (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent help, it's much appreciated. Take care. Let me know if I can help alleviate the stress. TheRingess (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message, will do. Looks to me like the debate is proceeding reasonably. TheRingess (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IPSOS, I'm really close to supporting a 'keep' on this article, but after rereading it I saw the references weren't really objective enough; they need to be from sources independent of the subject ideally, as recommended here. If you could drag a couple into the article I'd be sure to switch back to 'keep'. Coldmachine^Talk 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to message left on my talk page: no, not at all. Kephera's views have little bearing on my opinion/!vote on this AfD. I haven't even read them, tbh. I'm saying that after a re-read of the article I can see few/no third party references or references independent of the subject, which would indicate notability. So, at the moment the organisation appears to fail the notability test. I was saying that if you - as someone who reads in this area - were able to find something to add to the article that would remedy this, then it would be a simple case of switching from delete to keep. Coldmachine^Talk 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying "independent" incorrectly. Books published by reliable publishers are independent. Even Cicero's accounts are published by reliable publishers and are clearly indicated as autobiographical. This is also an acceptable application of Wikipedia principles. None of the references provided are self-published except for the reference supporting licensing and certification of other groups, which since they demonstrably own the trademark they have the sole right to determine.

Independent as used in the notability requirements simply means "not self-published". None of the sources besides Cicero and the web citation noted above fail the independence requirement. "Independence" is clearly defined in WP:NOTE - it does not mean independent from the field, only "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases." These concerns simply do not apply to Suster, the Greers, or Wasserman. IPSOS (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:IS that's not true: "an independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective". In this case, it's irrelevant who published the material if it's written by an author with a vested interest in that field; that's how I understand it at least. If the only people to rely on for a test of corporate notability in this case are practitioners then it seems to me that there's no independent sources. Coldmachine^Talk 13:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might comment here - the page WP:IS is not Wiki policy; in fact, the header on the page says: "This is an essay which expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. Its original author has since renounced the essay." I can see why. For example, something about a physician published by Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine couldn't be said to be a source with a "disinterested perspective" as you define it here, but I doubt those journals wouldn't be considered reliable sources for a Wikipedia reference. It could be said that almost any author about any subject has some interest in a field - they bloody well wouldn't be writing about it if they had no interest in it! What matters for verifiability is that they are not self-published sources, but major book publishing imprints with (presumably) an editorial fact-checking process and a reputation which that process is meant to preserve. Suster, Greer and Wasserman are all authors with several books on major imprints. Even if they are friends with the subject, they can't be assumed to be lying in their books just to credit their friend with something untrue. The "independent source" is not the author per se, but the publisher that reviews and fact-checks the material before it's published. JMax555 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

????Lancet etc are peer reviewed by scientists not from the same orgs as the scientist writing, they are neutral and just present the results of studies.Merkinsmum 17:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also somewhat spurious to try and make an analogy between a reputable world recognised journal, and an extremely small specialist publisher. WP:IS may not be policy, but it's a useful way of interpreting notability and verifiability which are policies. I'm still not convinced, and rather than picking bones about what 'independent' does or doesn't mean it might be more productive if editors of this article were to offer some form of concrete information/citations which might persuade those of us who are so far unconvinced. Coldmachine^Talk 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've renominated it, as you suggested. --Eyrian 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed my message above. (I think I put in in the wrong place.) You got a whole pack of them. Good work! Mattisse 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it User:Kephera975 that "accidentally" copied User:999's signature and then covered his tracks? Everyone said it was just a "coincidence" and don't make a big thing out of nothing. Yeah, right. That is what first got my antennae up. Mattisse 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what first aroused my suspicions as well, though the evidence was judged insufficient. It doesn't really matter now, though. IPSOS (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only goes to show how subtly watchful you have to be, even if others dismiss your reasoning. Besides, I don't think these socks are gone for good. A new batch is on the way if User:999 and friends are behind it. Mattisse 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one bites the dust... Coldmachine^Talk 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kremm! That was fast. Mattisse 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPSOS, someone already got the new sock, but if you see more, be sure to let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumps straight in and starts POVing up the article and re-introducing whole sections. Not sure how to handle this situation myself. Any ideas? Regards Bksimonb 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is becoming clear what is happening now. Compare this with this. It even mentions "funding". Regards Bksimonb 19:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've tagged the user page but not yet filed a checkuser. I would do this myself but I'm not sure if it is more appropriate to add to the existing checkuser or file a new one. I can supply more contribs evidence once something is formalised. Please let me know.

This has happened in the past when the article moves too far away from a preferred POV version. A SPA or annon IP will spring up and snow-storm changes over a day or so.

Also I must claim responsibility for the "passive voice" stuff in the BKWSU article. Well we live and learn as they say!

Regards Bksimonb 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Just wanted to make sure it was the right route to take and I wasn't duplicating or contradicting any action you may have been taking. Will do that now. Regards Bksimonb 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. The first case was closed.Regards Bksimonb 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do. Do I file this as a type "A - Request to identify and block the IP addresses responsible for blatant vandalism and attack accounts" or a type "C - Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents"? Bksimonb 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Regards Bksimonb 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a RFC/User on Kwork based primarily around his actions on the Alice Bailey page. Please feel free to add comments.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/kwork

Sethie 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lwachowski has created a page, Atman Foundation. Is the subject notable enough for a whole article? I thought a single news event concerning an otherwise unknown person was not notable, especially since the whole thing turned out to be a hoax, according to Tenerife news. This event is covered already in the article on Cult suicide as a "Questionable cult suicides".

Should I flag this article for deletion? I don't really have any personal objection to it staying since it clearly shows that the event was a hoax and thus isn't a WP:BLP. I'm just a bit concerned that stuff deemed not to be needed in the article is being farmed out wholesale to separate articles. Just wanted you opinion on this before I take any action. Regards Bksimonb 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am sorry but you are plain and absolutely wrong about the Walliss quote. Have you actually read the book? --Lwachowski 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]