Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archeoix (2nd)

User:Archeoix (2nd)
}
 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See their edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ten-string_guitar&action=history
 * Evidence

And here, especially, the malicious polemics of user DearJonas is repeated by user Archeoix: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narciso_Yepes&diff=204258201&oldid=204090310

Which repeats the same polemic of user "Cant all be good" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narciso_Yepes&diff=203394165&oldid=202682084

Full edit history on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narciso_Yepes&action=history

This individual (or, and his friend/s) is resorting to malicious edits and polemic because of an edit disagreement on Ten-string guitar. They want it to be acknowledged that a "10-string guitar" can be tuned any possible way. This is not constructive, or appropriate for an encyclopaedia, which should contain facts and/or information/people/concepts/events etc. that have been historically proven significant. If you refer to good Music Dictionary or Encyclopaedia, you will find that those 10-string guitarists and their instruments that are historically significant include Carulli and his Decacorde, Mertz (and others) and their Romantic 10-stringed guitar, and Narciso Yepes and his modern 10-string guitar. This last is defined by its singular tuning, which possesses singular resonant properties. This is a matter of fact as we are dealing with the well-documented acoustic phenomenon of Resonance (or "sympathetic" resonance). Yepes's opinions about other tuning that are not informed by the same logic - or contrary ideas - are in print. My edits are based exclusively in what is proven facts of physics that can be applied to the strings of a guitar, printed interviews and articles, Narciso Yepes's own press materials and concert programs, and historical documents (manuscripts). These individuals feel threatened by this knowledge. They want a free-for-all, or to have their opinions recognised as significant. But they simply are not. So they resort to polemic against Yepes and repeated (daily) vandalism of Narciso Yepes and Ten-string guitar.
 * Comments

Please confirm if any of these are sock-puppets and block these IP addresses if necessary. This is becoming a daily disruption. We could all be spiteful and dig up polemics on everyone and everything, but where will that get us and what is there to LEARN? This is after all an encyclopaedia. I would just like to see the facts retained that others would like to obfuscate and when they cannot, they resort to pettiness and polemics. Where does it get us to deny that there is a standard tuning of an instrument, just because some individuals choose to do different? Why bother to have an encyclopaedia or any learning to begin with if there is a free-for-all, no standard, no knowledge, and everyone's lay opinion is significant or valid even when all the historical documentation and other facts contradict it. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

This is a bit stale now, on any number of levels. Firstly it appears to be an edit war over the inclusion of a not-particularly-offensive quote (I offer no view whether it's accurate or properly cited or not) about the Naciso yepes. I don't think it's particularly reasonable to describe that quote as "malicious" or "polemic", to be honest.

That said, Joe Dario and Joe Dario's friend haven't edited since November 2007. Can't all be good has a grand total of 2 contributions, and hasn't edited for some weeks. Dear Jonas and Archeoix have not edited since the beginning of the month either. Given the somewhat stale nature of the report by now, I'm not going to take any action, but will keep the article watchlisted. If this continues, then I'll semi- or fully-protect the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page. GBT/C 12:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)