Pr D Phillip
|
Using multiple accounts
editHello Pr D Phillip,
I've noticed you're editting under this name, as User:Owl Night, and under several ip addresses. I must stress to you that using multiple accounts is frowed upon at Wikipedia, and can be a blockable offense when deemed inappropriate by administrators like myself.
The rule is one editor, one account, and using multiple accounts to give the impression that several people favour a certain viewpoint (known as sock puppetry) is expressly forbidden.
Our policy on multiple accounts is found at the page entitled Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, whilst such activity can be proven by our administrators who have access to who logs in, where, how and under what name. This is to protect Wikipedia, as I'm sure you can appreciate.
I'm quite sure you've joined Wikipedia in good faith, but I can assure you that such activity will not benefit the changes you seek on Wikipedia; you may find articles locked from you if you breach our principle of consensus.
Best bet from here, would be to take a look at our welcome page, and stick with one account. Rightly or wrongly, the changes you seek to say Leeds, would be viewed more favourably if you show yourself to be a dedicated user with Wikipedia's interests at heart.
Best of luck. --Jza84 | Talk 22:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again,
- I have blocked two of your sock puppets. If you create a false account again I will block you indefinately. This is your final warning. --Jza84 | Talk 23:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
HI Jza84, since your final warning I have made no posts whatsoever, and I would like to point out that no suspected sock allegations have been laid towards since either, however a secondary administrator it appears has decided to come along at a later date and indefinately ban me for ever, despite no misbehaviour on my part, or not even a single post made my me since your warning Pr D Phillip (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Pr D Phillip (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
an administrator had given a "final warning" to me for suspected sockpuppets on my talk page dated 19 Dec 2008. After this date, I have made no posts, and there has been no further incidents of suspected sockpuppets accusations laid towards me, yet another adminstrator appears to have come along at a later date and (accidently or unwittingly) just banned/blocked me anyway
Decline reason:
The blocking administrator does not support an unblock at this time, and you continue to edit via an IP address while being logged out after being warned and blocked for using alternative accounts. Please contact the blocking administrator by using the "Email this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the screen while you are viewing his user talk page to discuss this further with him. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:03, 19 January 2009 (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.
Multiple accounts
editRegarding the question about this editor's sockpuppet use at User talk:JzG, a list of accounts believed to be operated by User:Pr D Phillip can be found at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pr D Phillip. See the dialog at Talk:Leeds, where a sock's first edit on Wikipedia is being used to sway the outcome of a vote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue here isnt whether the two suspected sock puppets were me (they were not but I am nt arguing that case here), the issue is actually that I was given a final warning for two suspected sock puppets, whereby the administrator said that if any further sockpuppetry happens on my part I wil be banned. After this warning no further posts whatsoever were made by me and no further incidents of suspected sockpuppets has been laid against me yet a diferent administrator at a later date(Guy/JzG) still decided to just indeffinately ban me anyway, despite the warning already being heeded by me, and no misbehaviour taking place, and despite the original administrator who already gave the final warning was keeping an eye on my posts. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever - other than a punishment for suspected previous historic behaviour that had already been dealt with - and this is why I am requesting an unblock.
And with regards to the two sockpuppets - the irony is that neither are actually me (but I realise that protesting this for an unblock is poimtless). One of the suspected sock puppets (night owl) made one post months before I ever even starting posting - and his post uses a diferent line of argument to my many indepth lengthy posts. The only possible connection to me is that he is pro-merger like me (but over half the other people on the disccusion are too), however he was unfortunate enough to posts on a single topic as a new user. Readng through the wiki sockpuppeting files it explains that it is quite natural for multiple people to join and wish to take part in a discussion where a consensus is being formed - that said, nightowl joined and made his 1 post months before I actually joined and started to get involved in this discussion. It just seems very suspect that the administrator who pretty much randomly attributed NightOwl as being my sockpuppet has a vested interested in stemming the tipping point of concensus, and silencing people as he (being a passionate Manchester editor) is against the Leeds merger. Pr D Phillip (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Pr D Phillip (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
an administrator had given a "final warning" to me for 2 suspected sockpuppets on my talk page dated 19 Dec 2008. After this date, I have made no posts, and there has been no further incidents of suspected sockpuppets accusations laid towards me, yet another adminstrator (User_talk:JzG) appears to have come along at a later date and (accidently or unwittingly) just banned/blocked me forever anyway" This was brought to admin JzG's attention by admin User:Jayron32. JzG's reply was " if you think you can control the problem you are welcome to unblock". The problem with this is that the administrator who issued a final warning was already "controlling the problem" and monitoring my posts, rendering JzG's reason for keeping the ban not necessary - especially so in the context that no posts had been made by me after the final warning, and no suspected sockpupetry had been laid towards me after the final warning either. Can someone please look in to this I really just want to get on with posting. I have been unable to post for a month now, and it seems really disproportionate.
Decline reason:
You haven't addressed the reason for your block. Sockpuppetry is a blockable offense, warning or no warning. — Smashvilletalk 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
But - after being banned for a month now.. i have sat for hours reading through wiki pages about sockpuppetry , and even if the 2 sockpuppets were mine (which they were not) - general protocal appears to be "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator". This suggests that the sock puppets are deffinately blocked, but discretion is used with regards to the main account. Now taking into context that an administrator had already blocked the suspected sockpuppets, given a final warning, and after that warning was issued no further incidents of alleged sockpuppetry have occured on my part it seems disproportionate and unusual that I am now banned for the rest of my life from ever using wiki again - especially when you actually put yourself in my shoes, where the 2 sockpuppets were not even me anyway - and any admin can quite easily see that, given that one of them was someone who posted 1 post, months before I ever started using wiki. Pr D Phillip (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (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.
Pr D Phillip (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
an administrator and given a "final warning" to me for 2 suspected sockpuppets on my talk page dated 19 Dec 2008. The two sockpupets were blocked and a final warning was given to me not to do it again. After this date, I have made no posts, and there has been no further incidents of suspected sockpuppets accusations laid towards me, yet another adminstrator (User_talk:JzG) appears to have come along at a later date and (accidently or unwittingly) just banned/blocked me forever anyway" This was brought to admin JzG's attention by admin User:Jayron32. JzG's reply was " if you think you can control the problem you are welcome to unblock". The problem with this is that the administrator who issued a final warning was already "controlling the problem" and monitoring my posts, rendering JzG's reason for keeping the ban not necessary - especially so in the context that no posts had been made by me after the final warning, and no suspected sockpupetry had been laid towards me after the final warning either. Can someone please look in to this I really just want to get on with posting. I have been unable to post for a month now, and it seems really disproportionate." Decline reason: "You haven't addressed the reason for your block. Sockpuppetry is a blockable offense, warning or no warning. — user:Smashville But - after being banned for a month now.. i have sat for hours reading through wiki pages about sockpuppetry , and even if the 2 sockpuppets were mine (which they were not) - general protocal appears to be "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator". This suggests that the sock puppets are deffinately blocked, but discretion is used with regards to the main account. Now taking into context that an administrator had already blocked the suspected sockpuppets, given a final warning, and after that warning was issued no further incidents of alleged sockpuppetry have occured on my part it seems disproportionate and unusual that I am now banned for the rest of my life from ever using wiki again - especially when you actually put yourself in my shoes, where the 2 sockpuppets were not even me anyway - and any admin can quite easily see that, given that one of them was someone who posted 1 post, months before I ever started using wiki. Pr D Phillip (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"
Decline reason:
I believe that Owl Night (talk · contribs) and Traceylovell (talk · contribs) are indeed your socks. As you continue to deny this, it is likely that yo would continue to disrupt Wikipedia by sockpuppetry if unblocked. If you make another unpersuasive request, this page may be protected. — Sandstein 19:01, 19 January 2009 (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.
To start with the easiest one, user:Owl Night - On what grounds is this supposed to be me? It's a user created long before I even started posting in here. And his single pro-merger comment is a totally diferent pro-merger argument to all my lengthy posts that I have posted since joining. It is very clear that the administrator was unhappy with new people making their opinion known, and wanted to silence these people, and by sheer chance decided to lump these 2 people as being my sock puppets an then just banning us all. So what this means is because of random guess work by an adminstrator who had a vested interest, I have to be banned for the rest of my life from ever contributing to wikipedia. Ive been trying to get this sorted for a month now - with a lot of time and effort and it just seems further administrators seem to favour a counter-productive punishment.
And to answer you question, this isnt about being conerned that I will "continue further puppetry" - it has already been shown and proved that no such "further puppetr" occured after a warning was put on my page (or rather luckily no new people decided to make their voice known as it was the christmas period and all people in the thread stopped posting).
Unblocked
editI have unblocked you but would ask that you give (again) an assurance that you have used this, and only this, account. I think, though, that it would be better for you to leave the Leeds article alone for now. Actually I suspect that even if those other accounts were you, you will by now have been persuaded that it was a very bad idea and would not be tempted to repeat it, but I guess it is time to assume good faith since your emails have been calm and polite. Sorry for the delay. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)