Phdoc0

Vandalizing pages will get you banned from WikiPedia. Even when you create a new account, it will result in your IP getting banned. If you want to be a member of the WikiPedia community, great! However, it looks like you aren't here for productive reasons. I will be reporting you... again. Elementrider77 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC) ElementRider77

m.o.p 06:36, 4 July 2011 (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).

Phdoc0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Elementrider 77 works for Freedom and they are trying to suppress any information about Freedom's legal problems. They are also using Wiki as an advertisement as you can see on they're website it list links to follow them on facebook, twitter and wiki. Freedom has had a tremendous amount of legal issues across the United States in the areas of deception, fraud and operating without being licensed. Elementrider 77 is a sock puppet of Freedom Debt and should be band from any editing of that page. Wiki has allowed Elementrider 77 to accuse anyone that posts information about Freedom's legal issues, that would give a consumer information that is considered important when making an informed choice about purchasing Freedoms services as site vandalism and locking that individual out. Freedom sells debt settlement, which is a financial service to a financially distress consumer, because of the problems in the debt settlement industry the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had to amend the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). Although Wiki is a free site, it is applauding to me that the editors allow, what is clearly an individual trying to suppress legal facts about an organization. In the FTC amended TSR any organization can be held liable for the substantial assistance to a debt settlement organization in the area of advertisement to mislead of defraud a consumer. This in fact could be the case with Wiki. Elementrider77 should be halted from any editing of any debt settlement/ relief sites.

Decline reason:

Unblock request does not address the reason for the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2011 (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.

If you are contesting a block as a sockpuppet, about the only valid reasons I can think of would include denying that you are a sock and providing us with some convincing explanation for the mistake, or admitting that the two accounts are both yours but providing some justification for your use of them being legitimate. If you wish to present some other reason why you should be unblocked, you would need to do so on your original account - but even there, using an unblock request to attack/blame other people is unlikely to succeed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2011 (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).

Phdoc0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It most absolutely addresses the request. Elementride 77 had me block because I reposted the legal issues for Freedom Debt Relief. They want the information hidden, go back and look at every time their problems are posted Elementrider 77 suppresses that information and then reports that individual as site vandalism and blocks them which Wiki allows. Wiki should not allow individuals to be blocked when placing truthful facts that are sited just because a company does not like the legal problems they have to be post. Wiki is suppose to be a site that post factual information, not suppressed information. Elementrider 77 is abusing what Wiki is all about for advertisement purposes for Freedom Debt Relief.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - unblock request has been replaced with one that actually addresses the sockpuppetry charge, below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2011 (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.

If that is your argument, you will need to make your request at your main account, at User talk:Ground101. Unblock requests at sockpuppet accounts are very unlikely to be successful unless they address the actual sockpuppetry issue - so at the very least you would need to address the relationship between the accounts of User:Phdoc0 and User:Ground101 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2011 (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).

Phdoc0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not Gound101. You should be able to tell that from my IP address if you checked. I'm sure Ground101 is someone in the debt settlement area as well. I just re-posted what they originally posted. Elementrider77 keeps taking down any persons posts that show the legal issues of Freedom.

Decline reason:

You could be Ground101 posting from a different computer. IP addresses are not coded into DNA, after all. As for the substance of your request, see WP:NOTTHEM and WP:TRUTH. If you continue in this vein, you may well lose your talk page access. — Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (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.

Being an admin does not give me the ability to check IP addresses, so I am not able to do that. Only specially selected people with Checkuser privilege can do that, so now that you have actually addressed the sockpuppetry charge we will have to leave it until someone comes along who is able to check -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a CheckUser, and have confirmed that you are  Unrelated to Ground101, based on technical evidence, that is. However, I am curious as to why your very first edit here was to restore the content Ground101 was adding, when it was obviously being contested by another editor. Were you contacted by someone to make this edit? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a response to Daniel Case's unblock decline above, is it possible for a CheckUser to expand at all and perhaps say how confident we can be about the two users being unconnected? Do they geolocate differently, for example? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, when I say two users are unrelated, I take the whole "using a different computer" thing into account. These users are several hundred miles apart and cannot be the same person. However, that does not necessarily exclude meatpuppetry, hence my question. I won't undo Daniel's decline, but I would encourage Phdoc0 to post another request, addressing the concern I raised. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I would, had I Checkuser access, say two accounts are unrelated if they are a great distance apart and there are no other clear similarities and the technical evidence doesn't suggest a match and the other IP is not known to be a proxy. Mere geographic separation does not distinguish different users, after all ... I have blocked vandals who were clearly students at a US high school whose IPs geolocated to Europe or Asia, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Good for you. I focus on the technical evidence when speaking as a checkuser. In this case, both accounts are a great distance apart, use computers with different operating systems, and do not appear to be using proxies. As I said, they are technically unrelated and cannot be the same person. Now excuse me while I block that IP address below for block evasion... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please address the content dispute issues 71.244.30.84 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)ground101

{{unblock Let me address a couple of issues. First let me start off by addressing Wiki as an overall site. As someone that has taught at the university level and now that I have had this experience with Wiki it does not surprise me in the least why most departments list Wiki as an invalid citation site with regards to student papers. Let’s look at what happen here. You have Elementrider77 that other than correcting some spelling here and there is really only concerned with the pages of Freedom Debt Relief (FDR) and the CEO Andrew Housser. Someone, in this case it was ground101 posted factual information about some legal trouble that FDR has had. Elementrider77 immediately takes it down, ground101 puts it back up, Elementrider77 takes it down, and this goes back and forth. So Elementrider77 reports it as vandalism and asks for ground101 to be blocked. So the editors obviously do zero checking on the information as to whether it is factual or not. Which it is, and they take Elementrider77 word and block ground101. Now if anyone of my former students ever wrote a paper and told me something to the affect that method of ordinary least squares by Gauss regarding its use in ecometics is wrong without showing proof should I just belief it? Let’s examine the Wiki pages of Rep Anthony David Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Goldman Sachs. Do you think they enjoy any of the non-flattering factual information posted on their pages? If any one of them (and in the case of Goldman, Llyod Blankfein speaking on behalf of Goldman) were to report those individuals that posted the non-flattering facts on the site as vandalism, should those individuals that posted the information be blocked from Wiki? Should newspapers and the media be bard from reporting facts if they are negative? Although it maybe unfortunate for some individuals and organization in an age of electronics and the internet negative news can be disturbed globally and they may not like it, but it’s just they way it is. And I believe (especially as a US citizen) that as long as that information is factual we have the right to freedom of the press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press 

I also thought is was particularly humors that it was referenced to me to see WP:NOTTHEM and WP:TRUTH. Why wasn’t that told to Elementrider77? What ground101 posted was true, and then Elementrider77 complain about both ground101 as well as myself.

Let’s further examine the references used by Elementrider77 that the editors should have looked at in review of this case. He uses citations such as TASC which Housser is a board member, Freedoms own press releases, AFCC which is the new name of TASC b/c TASC has taken so much heat in the industry they did a name change. All the citations in the reference section for the most part all come from some connection of Freedom Debt Relief. It would be like Wiki or some afflation of Wiki putting out information that Wiki is the most reliable source in the world on information. Furthermore FDR uses “Follow Us on Wiki” as an advertisement on their website (which I thought I saw somewhere Wiki frowns on that).

Now let me address that question regarding my first edit in Wiki was to restore the content of ground101. I am a financial economist, who also holds several licenses with FINRA/SEC and has worked in the financial industry for many years. I was also a consultant that helped in the area of change to the Federal Trade Commissions amended to the TSR (which even Elementrider77 referenced). But I was on the opposite side of the debt settlement industry. I belong to a small group of consumer protection individuals and I had received information about what happened to ground101 on Wiki. Although I wasn’t told who ground101 was, I have a pretty good guess of a couple of people that it could be. I couldn’t believe what happened; I laughed in shock and said “NO, Wiki indefinitely blocked him for posting factual information just because those guys at FDR didn’t like it?” So I said to myself I have to make an account, repost that information, and see what happens. And low and behold some editor blocked me for reposting factual information without obviously doing any verification as to that information. I can only say good thing they weren’t a student of mine, one BIG fat “F” for a grade at this American University. It shows pure laziness and lack of understanding on behalf of an editor. And I have to say I was shocked, b/c I have in the past met a couple of people that are always editing and posting on Wiki, and they take it very personal and get somewhat upset when you tell them that Wiki is not a reliable source of information.

So after dealing with the quality of individuals on Wiki I could care less if I could ever edit on this site. It simply does not change the facts that FDR has had legal issues in multiple states across the US.

Now I state to you this in closing; If I’m a “sock puppet” of ground101 then there is no question Elementrider77 is a sock puppet of FDR and Andrew Housser and should be indefinitely blocked as well.}}