User talk:Kafka Liz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey)

Kafka Liz: Please try to give brief explanations of your revisions. Thank you. Aramgar 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aramgar, I meant to do so but forgot and wasn't sure it was worth littering up the talk page. Most of the edits relate to spelling, grammar and style. I removed information about the discovery of carpets and about touching mummified corpses because it seemed irrelevant to the mosque's history. Kafka Liz 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kafka Liz: I think that the carpet finds at the Alaeddin Camii are valid. I also believe that the recent editor meant to say that a visitor could easily view mummies at the Adsız Türbe, just as at the Türbe of Rukn al-Din in Amasya or at that of Aṣıklı Sultan in Kastamonu. I do not think that he meant to suggest we caress the mumyalar in Konya. I feel strongly that mention of the mummies is also valid. In the future, please post your editorial explanations on the talk page for Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey). Thanks. Aramgar 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Aramgar, the carpet references seem more appropriate to an article on Anatolian weaving or on Konya proper. I will post these, along with other reservations I had about these passages, on the appropriate talk page. Kafka Liz 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kubadabad Palace

Hi Liz. I must have missed the last two paragraphs - I checked pretty much everything else against the external site and couldn't see any direct copying and pasting. In cases like that, it's best to just delete the paragraphs in question than the entire article. I've done so now. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for Sockpuppetry

This account was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. Please see the case at RFCU This account is indefinitely blocked. -JodyB _talk 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. I would be happy to explain any appearance of impropriety but would prefer to do so in a less public fashion as the explanation relates directly my offline life, which I consider personal and private. Is there a way my explanation can be offered privately? Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. Please see WP:SOCK and note that meatpuppets are treated the same way as sockpuppets. — Yamla (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Dear Kafka Liz, please direct your query to email address: unblock-en-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org which will send it to a mailing list for administrators. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have done so. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As further evidence, this unblock request and the unblock request of Aramgar came in within 6 minutes of each other. Proof? No. Highly suggestive? Yes. -JodyB _talk 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of...?Kafka Liz (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kafka Liz, please click on the link at the top of this topic, that says "RFCU" to see the reasons the accounts are blocked. Ariel♥Gold 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the reasons is that a) we have edited on some of the same pages and b) we have used computers that share an ip address. I tried to address these concerns in the email I sent. Is there something I'm missing? Aramgar and I are not in the same location; I can't control when he posts regarding a situation that affects him too. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction, within 20 minutes -JodyB _talk 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that you are using the same computer at the same time, it's that you are both voting in the same RfAs, editing the same or similar articles, etc. See WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll also note that the message you sent to unblock-en-l has not yet arrived. It sometimes takes a few hours. If you have addressed these issues and stated the exact nature of the relationship between you and Aramgar, your block will be reconsidered with that additional information. --Yamla (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am in email communication with the user and have submitted the evidence to one of the checkusers. I'll be keeping a watch here. -JodyB _talk 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kafka Liz (and Aramgar), I wanted to say that I'm very sorry that you were blocked over this, but I'm glad that it's been overturned. The block was a somewhat harsher reaction than I would have recommended. The main reason that it seems to have occurred, was a matter of really bad timing. :/ Both of you unfortunately wandered into a very controversial situation at a very high-stress time. But for what it's worth, please don't take away from this that it was some sort of retaliation for "opposing" at the RfA. To be honest, the reaction probably would have been the same, even if you had both supported! It wasn't that you liked or didn't like me, it was that the two of you were clearly working in concert to influence a !vote, and that neither one of you normally participated in those kinds of discussions in the past. There are certain "signatures" of off-wiki collusion, and your behavior unfortunately set off multiple flags.

I still have to admit a bit of confusion as to how you heard of the RfA? What it looks like, is that one of the Wikipedia "pot-stirrers" sent you an email to get you to participate. If so, I'm sorry that they chose to use you as a spoon. :/

If you have any further questions about what happened, I would be happy to talk about it, and try to explain just what exactly you accidentally stepped into. For what it's worth, I think that you are both highly knowledgeable editors, and I would very much like to see both of you continue to participate at Wikipedia. Especially with your specialized knowledge on medieval history, and access to (and ability to understand) very complex sources, we really need more editors like you! So again, I apologize for the situation, and really, it has nothing to with your oppose.

If there's anything else I can do or explain, please let me know, --Elonka 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, at the risk of sounding too much like Aramgar, I too would like to thank you for your kind words and congratulate you on your adminship. And wish you an excellent holiday season. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I meant them sincerely.  :) Also, just curious, could you tell me which "path" that you followed to find the RfA? Which page did you happen to spot it on, or which page led you to which page? I'm interested in the train of thought on these kinds of things.  :) --Elonka 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't a very satisfying answer, and may not even seem plausible, but the honest truth is that I don't remember the exact path. I've been messing around on the Community Portal (reading, not editing) and trying to learn a little more about the project in general. Things I remember looking into were about copyright, page protection, and incidents but this was a couple of weeks ago at this point. I'm sorry I can't be of more help on this. :) (tentative smile intended to convey good will) Kafka Liz (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aherm

[1] Of course if you had explained that you had a close connection to another editor who edited the same discussion as you within minutes, the apparent misunderstanding would not have occured. I assume that the fact you both edited the same RFA within minutes was not a coincidence so you can hardly claim to be a totally innocent party. In future, I strongly suggest that you declare your connection should the two of you participate in the same discussion. That will help avoid suspicions of canvassing (never mind sockpuppetry ones). I am glad you were ultimately able to explain the situation to everyone's satisfaction, but there really is no need for sarcastic remarks. WjBscribe 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All the congratulatory stroking over an error was a bit aggravating. Mistakes were made, clearly. Unlike some, I have no trouble admitting that. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But you do seem to be avoiding stating specifically what mistakes were made, and even the fact that you made some yourself. --Deskana (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you still see fit to kick me around over this. Surely this is a dead horse at this point? Why is this still an issue? My statement, "mistakes were made," is my admission that Aramgar and I made some. Regarding stating specifically what the mistakes were, no one actually asked me to enumerate them. Nor do I see any reason to apologize further without some sort of mutual gesture from others involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, I have to admit some confusion as well. It had seemed that the situation was resolved, Kafka Liz and I had reached an understanding, and Kafka was back to editing peacefully. Then you posted the above message. I've checked Kafka Liz's contribs, but haven't seen any new problematic behavior. Is there something else going on that I'm unaware of? Or is someone feeling that they still didn't get a proper apology? If there's an outstanding issue, it's probably best to clarify it. If not, perhaps we could write this whole thing off as an unfortunate misunderstanding that occurred during a high-stress on-wiki time (exacerbated by holiday stress in off-wiki situations), and we could bury the hatchet and move on? I'm willing to, if others are.  :) --Elonka 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking/unblocking admin let me say that errors were made and, in email communications regarding the unblock, the user recognized what could have been done to prevent this in the future. Apart from the !vote at User:Elonka's RfA there was never any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. Let's go edit now, me included. -JodyB _talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally thought this was all behind us. I was surprised (and to be perfectly honest, slightly offended) that anyone still considered this an issue. I felt that Elonka's apology was more than satisfactory in that it put to rest not just the RfA issue but also the feelings that led me to voice an opinion in the first place. To be perfectly clear: my opinion of Elonka is completely positive, and I consider this incident behind me, apart from the lessons I took from it. Now, I'm off to enjoy the holidays (including some editing), and I hope all of you are as well. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really resolved to my satisfaction, but that's life. Merry Christmas, I hope you're having a good one so far. --Deskana (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas wishes aside, your remark seems intended to further ill will. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your dissatisfaction? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're straightened out! Happy New Year! Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafka Liz, sorry for the delay in responding, I'm still digging through holiday backlog! But yes, you're all good with me, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure what Deskana's concerns still might be, though it might (maybe) be related to the holidays. Deskana also recently went through an ArbCom election (but successfully passed), and is now one of Wikipedia's arbitrators, sort of like the Wikipedia Supreme Court. That Deskana posted a message on Christmas Day may also be significant on "getting caught up", I don't know, and can't really speak for Deskana. I'm hoping though that, barring any future elaboration, and in the spirit of forgiveness, we could wipe the slate clean in all regards, and start fresh? If you do have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask! Best wishes for a happy new year, --Elonka 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries; the slate is clean. :) Happy belated new year to you, as well! Kafka Liz (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)