Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Premier

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Premier[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Premier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

124.183.172.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Note

Report submission by

→ bsnowball 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

i strongly suspect this is to create the illusion of support for controversial ideas user is pushing, & to avoid scrutiny

this based on simlarity of subjects edited, content of those edits & editing style (multiple chop & change before deciding on final version)

these 2 accounts seem to have been used for similar in the past (124.184.224.64) [1] & (124.187.178.8) [2] i include them simply to bolster the case, aware per guidlines, they are not in themselves 'actionabale'

note: as no doubt u will notice, i am very involved in the extremely robust 'discussion' in Talk:Indigenous_Australians (& the immediately proceeding archive) which also involves this user. i am reasonably sure this accusation stands on its own merits, though, obviously i would like this user to stop posting what seems to me to be highly objectionable content per se.

~~also i completely suffed this the first time i tried, Suspected sock puppets/User:Premier but i can't find that now, sorry~~ have had that cleaned up → bsnowball 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding this later: sorry forgot, (another old one) 124.183.230.177 [3] may have been used to get around an extended ban if it's same user → bsnowball 13:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 Nov 2006, changes to Talk:Australian Aboriginal mythology within the same section: IP 01:49 UTC, IP 01:51 UTC (addition), Premier 07:34 UTC (new point) IP 10:21 UTC (modification of/addition to Premier's post], IP 10:22 UTC (another modification). Orderinchaos78 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is Premier here. Let me explain something. If I like certain phrases and forms of words that other wikipedians have used then I have no problem using them myself. This may create the impression I am a sockpuppet. But I'm not.

I'll agree that I have been involved in a robust debate on the indigenous Australians page. I've been enjoying it.

I'm trying to advance the point of view that cannibalism in ancient aboriginal society is a documented historical fact and has been since around the 1930s.

It has upset some people that I have raised this issue but what probably upsets them more is the fact that I am more than holding my own in the debate and I have been able to marshal a very formidable YES case.

Premier 12:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Orderinchaos78

I support the case as raised - it's fairly obvious to me (having been involved in said robust debate) that the two users are the same person, and the logged-in and not-logged-in variants are used interchangably, have the same writing style, same opinions, same sources, and same editing pattern. In more than one case, the IP has brought back removed or archived comments by Premier, or vice versa. The activity on the two cited IPs from 20:03, 10 November 2006 to 01:51, 11 November 2006 is particularly interesting - gaps in one appear to represent activity by the other. They stick to one or two articles and make changes very much in the same vein. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Premier

The other IP address belongs to my brother. We've both been contributing to the Indigenous Australians page from our place if that explains anything.

He's a much better writer than me and I do cut and paste his words a fair bit.

It is not sockpuppetry according to the definition of that word. But if what I am doing is not what you are allowed to do on wikipedia then you will forgive me. I'm only fairly new to it all.

For the record though I'll be damned if I'm "pushing controversial ideas" though. There are even full blooded aboriginies who believe that their ancient ancestors consumed human flesh in certain, qualified circumstances.

I'm relying on these sources among others:

There is no doubt that cannibalism existed among them until recent times, and possibly in such dangerous areas as Arnhem Land, in the far north of Northern Territory, may exist to this day. Motives for the eating of human flesh, as elsewhere, are varied, and often closely intertwined. The need for sacrifice; the demands of magic; the desire for revenge; all these are present, as elsewhere; but in the case of the Blackfellows they are perhaps less clearly evolved and crystallized.

Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, p. 179

The eating of human flesh was not practised by the Australian native to the extent that it was by the South Sea Islander. The term 'cannibalism' is usually taken to mean gorging on human flesh, and with relish; and that seems a valid description of the cannibalism of the Melanesian indigènes of New Caledonia, who appear to have regarded man-meat much as we regard the Sunday-joint. Not all cannibalism is the same in purpose.

In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley. In 1933 I was able to talk to old men who had eaten human flesh. The chief of Yam Island described to me how he had eaten finely-chopped man-meat mixed with crocodile-meat, at his initiation. He added that it had made him sick. The purpose, as he put it, was 'to make heart come strong inside.'

In the Wotjobaluk tribe, a couple who already had a child might kill their new-born and feed its muscle-flesh to the other one to make it strong. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister.

Human flesh-eating among many tribes was a sign of respect for the dead. At a Dieri burial, relatives received, in strict order of precedence, small portions of the body-fat to eat. 'We eat him,' a tribesman said, 'because we knew him and were fond of him.' But revenge cannibalism is typified in the custom of the Ngarigo tribe, who ate the flesh of the hands and feet of slain enemies, and accompanied the eating with loud expressions of contempt for the people killed.

Colin Simpson, Adam in Ochre, Angus & Robertson, 1938

The body [during burial rites] was dried over a fire or in the sun, after the internal organs had been removed through an incision and it had been packed, bound up and, usually, painted. It was then made up into a bundle, and is carried around by the mourners until their grief had been assuaged. It is finally disposed of by internment, cremation, or by being put inside a hollow tree. In some districts, the preparation is complicated by cannibalism, so that the bundle consists only of the bones, or the bones and the dried skin.

Cannibalism forms a ceremony, not only in connexion with mummification in parts of Queensland, but also precedes the exposure of the body on the tree-stage among other tribes. Parts of the body have to be eaten by prescribed relations. Practised in Queensland, as part of burial, cannibalism was considered a most honourable rite, to be used only for persons of worth. It was, incidentally, a quick method of preparing the 'mummy,' the flesh being eaten instead of merely being dried in the sun or over a fire.

A. P. Elkin, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Sydney, The Australian Aborigines, Angus & Robertson, 1938

The first case was at Apawandinna, halfway from Cowarie. A very fat Blackfellow chased an emu and became overheated in the chase, and died. The other Blackfellows were very worried over the death. They examined the man, but could not find anything to show as a cause of his death. He was a good-natured man, very popular with the tribe, so that it was unlikely that he had been 'boned' - a form of magic widely practised among the Wonkonguru tribe.

Finally, the old men of the tribe decided to cook the body. They cut it up and distributed it right round the camps of the tribe, which at that time extended from Killalpaninna to Birdsville in Queensland. The idea of the old men was that if the dead man had been 'boned,' his flesh would poison the man who had 'boned' him, and anyone who was innocent would be protected from such a death by eating a piece of him. I talked it over with one old man who had eaten it in order that the rest would not think him guilty of 'boning' the dead man. He put it to me this way: Spose 'em me no eat 'em. 'Nother fella say, Him kill 'em. Me eat 'em, then all right.'

Horne, G. and Aiston, G., members of the Australian Mounted Police, Savage Life in Central Australia, Macmillan, 1924

It appeared that a white man by himself on such a mission as mine might easily find himself wrapped in pandanum-leaves and roasting quietly on the ashes of an Arnhem-Land fire. 'From well corroborated evidence, a form of cannibalism is still practised by three groups between the Blyth and Liverpool Rivers,' Gordon Sweeney, a Patrol Officer in the Native Affairs Branch, one of my predecessors, wrote. 'The bodies of all except the children, old people, and the diseased are cut up after death, the bones taken out and the flesh cooked and eaten. There appears to be no special ceremony at the time, or ceremonial significance attached to this practice, at least among two groups, the Manbuloi and the Gumauwurrk. A third group, the Rauwarang, do not allow the children to eat. The bones are shortly afterwards handed to the relative who is to carry them at the usual Buguburrt corroboree, which under this name is practised throughout the social area. The reason given for the cannibal practice in all three groups is that the people think that eating human flesh will make them clever at hunting, at spearing kangaroos, finding wild honey, getting yams, etc.'

I wondered about Sweeney's warnings of Cannibalism. I had known the Australian aborigine for too long to believe that he was a blood-thirsty, man-eating savage. Provoked, he was savage. But I did not mean to be provocative. As for man-eating, I discovered later that this was only partly true. The Liverpool River natives did not kill men for food. The ate human flesh largely from superstitious beliefs. If they killed a worthy man in battle, they ate his heart, believing that they would inherit his valour and power. They ate his brain because they knew it represented the seat of his knowledge. If they killed a fast runner, they ate part of his legs, hoping thereby to acquire his speed.

S. Kyle-Little, Whispering Wind, Hutchinson 1957

Among the native tribes of Australia, the bodies of those who fall in battle, honoured chiefs, and newborn infants, are frequently consumed to obtain their qualities, just as in the Torres Straits (which separate the northernmost territory of Australia from the southernmost part of New Guinea) the tongue and sweat of a slain enemy are imbibed to get his bravery.

E. O. James, Origins of Sacrifice, John Murray, 1933

Premier 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already looked into the above material and found it wanting on the grounds raised in that edit (namely that the material, as repeatedly pasted, comes from an unreliable source with a clear POV). The attitude demonstrated in the comments "Cannibalism wasn't discussed to my satisfaction, I'll certainly bring that back. And I'll keep on bringing it back too." [4] by the above editor demonstrates a level of hostility towards other editors on the project and a willingness to raise the same issue repeatedly when both consensus and etiquette guidelines would normally suggest otherwise. This conversation has disrupted every other conversation on the relevant talk page, including an attempt to hold a poll as to whether a name change is advisable. The debate is not about whether cannibalism occurred or didn't occur - it's a question of sources, and of acting fairly towards other posters and contributors to the article, including an admin who has reviewed the matter. At the end of the day ALL of us should be trying to work towards improving the article and eventually, maybe, getting it to Feature Article standard.

I should note that I did address one of Premier's concerns regarding the positioning of a quote of Walter Roth which may have resulted in POV the other way, by moving it about six paragraphs down to a section where it fitted in better with the narrative. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement has been made:

"An admin has already looked into the above material and found it wanting on the grounds raised in that edit (namely that the material, as repeatedly pasted, comes from an unreliable source with a clear POV)."

The material doesn't come from a website maintained by a white supremacist. It comes from books. These books: Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Adam in Ochre, The Australian Aborigines, Savage Life in Central Australia, Whispering Wind, Origins of Sacrifice. If you obtain copies of the books then you will find those extracts are in them.

You can certainly try to mount some sort of an argument that the sources are POV - that's why I have kept posting the extracts into the discussion page. To stimulate such a debate. But somebody keeps removing the discussion and I can only think it is politically motivated.

I put this to you. There are many sources that claim massacres of blacks took place in Australia's colonial past. I have seen extracts from these sources appear on websites maintained by people with extreme left wing poltical views. Some of them are even communist sympathisers.

Does this material become POV just because it has appears in these places of ill repute?

Have a good think about it somebody in charge I pray you.

Premier 03:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any POV is unacceptable, regardless of what direction it is. There are some situations where Wikipedia does discuss propositions, and I think that cannibalism in the article is indeed discussed in such a way in its present incarnation. Several of the massacres (the Pinjarra one in WA for example) are documented clearly and are on the historical record - while the Government prefer to call it the "Battle of Pinjarra", it is most definitely acknowledged by the Government and appears in modern official documents described using terms like "decimated". Others are not - there's been a very interesting debate about an alleged massacre in Coolac which noone can prove even took place, although it may well have done so, and a person equally as determined as yourself keeps trying to get it listed - that one went all the way to arbitration and the claims were struck down as POV.

The fact is - all of the above is off topic - and I too am guilty of such in replying to your comment above. The discussion on *this* page is not whether your point of view is correct, but whether you are interchangably using your logged in name and several IP addresses to edit Wikipedia in such a fashion as to attempt to create consensus. As a fellow editor, I'm prepared to consider that as you are new it's a matter of whether you forgot to log in or not. However, the only way this process can be accountable (and you have been asked before to do so) is to log in, or if the edits genuinely are from a different person, to have them create an account and log in, and to sign off on all posts (which I notice of late you have been doing consistently, which is good.) Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Walter Roth is a POV source then I want to know if the dream that was wikipedia is viable?

No wonder you have a serious competitor starting up. After they do I bet I can convince their team of professional editors that Dr Roth is a source worth quoting...

Premier 11:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My brother says he still wants to keep posting to wikipedia but we have agreed not to cut and paste each others work if it is upsetting people.

Now, surely we can resolve this matter then?

Premier 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

07:08, December 29, 2006 Hesperian (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Premier (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite: [5] so closing this SSP. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]