GJGardner

Bye.

Lol. You send me a welcome message and then tell me to 'take my crap somewhere else'. So very funny. I guess you are not a very professional member of wiki then. LMAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.86.195 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, admins don't need the checkuser evidence to block you on this account, as there's ample other evidence. Indeed, that evidence is sufficiently strong that even if the checkuser finds no link, you are still likely to be blocked indef. The reason for my adherence to process, though, is that I actually believe (and have seen in the past) that problematic users can improve over time. This is especially the case with younger users. I have known you were on this account for quite a while, just as I knew from a moderately early stage about Wikistar2, but my (I suppose) conservative-by-Wiki-standards view is that we should only really block for disruption and there has always been productive edits from your accounts. I even advised a fellow admin some time ago not to block you and to see how things played out.

So it has only been a combination of an increase in disruptive behaviour and policy issues with your edits together with reasonable suggestions by other users that you are using at least three other accounts that led me to finally initiate the checkuser which will likely see the current accounts blocked. Future accounts will likely be blocked on sight, as admins can do and always were able to do. Orderinchaos 06:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am only operating one account. I only ever edit with one account. I always have done so. I was blocked from my first account because it was determined that it was a sock of another user, which is still unfair as I had nothing to do with the other (as you yourself at times have pointed out). I try not to be a distuptive editor, I would like to think Im a lot less disruptive than some others that are never disciplined, I am not interested in the behind the scenes work nor the administration of Wiki like yourself. I fail to see the other users suggestions here on Wiki and I thank you for recognising that I am a good contributor to Wikipedia. I can only ask this: What do I have to do to edit Wikipedia again straitaway without having to create an account whenever mine is blocked, for something I had and have no control of anymore. You seem to be over this as much as I am, so I would like to extend a hand to you and the Wikipedia community to sort this out and get on with valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Balls in your court. GJGardner (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side, do you honestly think that User:Stravin and User:Watchover where this all originated (one of which is my original account, the other having nothing to do with me) are one editor or two editors? I can tell you it has to be two, but your opinion would help in knowing how this is going to end up. GJGardner (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the second message first - whether I think Stravin/Watchover are one account is irrelevant. It's a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the amassed evidence, the only other reasonable conclusion being that there are two people cohabiting and editing together on closely related subjects. Either one would be a violation of WP:SOCK.

Regarding disruptive behaviour - I was referring to the partisan promotion/slagging and occasional struggles on political topics. Whatever way, this is not constructive and has got to stop. We all have political opinions - there are members and supporters of a range of parties present in the Australian Politics wikiproject and connected articles, but with only a couple of exceptions, those opinions are left at the door as we aim to create a NPOV encyclopaedia. What's unusual about the cases you're involved in is there is rarely an opposite side to contend with. You'd know I've been an editor here for over four years and an admin for over three, and I have seen a fair few nasty struggles in my time, particularly over the John Howard article (where small groups of opposite, warring editors pretty much shut down all meaningful editing on the article for months if not longer). Once a few of these people either moved on or were cleared out, work was able to recommence. I believe it should not be a huge issue for you to correct as it only impinges upon a minority of your edits.

Additionally there are occasional issues with image uploads with misleading or incorrect copyright information, particularly those of living people. This is obviously of concern as it's a Foundation priority to ensure that all the projects it hosts are in compliance with its universal copyright provisions and it's the job of editors and admins to police this.

If there is a way for us all to work together in good faith in a long-term sense - and I do note once again that many of your edits are productive and useful and are appreciated/welcomed - then I'm keen to see it happen so that this situation can be put to rest. Orderinchaos 09:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be refering to the other editor regarding the howard article, I usually choose to stay away from it because of the sensitivity from a few editors regarding the article, also because it isn't such a bad article, it doesn't need much work. I have never socked since or before my block date for the purpose of 'socking', there has always just been one account from me, but its obvious that the other editor has been busy when only 2 of the 9 registered accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stravin/Archive I have created. Im keen to put this to rest as well, however I haven't a clue on how to work this out. GJGardner (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, the Howard problem was well before your time - I was using it as an example.) Orderinchaos 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)