Saksihw

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. I had intended to separate my contributions according to the themes, by creating 2 more accounts (RogerBeaupoil and Frenpahi. I now understand that using multiple accounts is against the wikipedia guidelines and goals of traceability and trust. 2. the account Hervé Babylonia belongs to my roomate at the time, hence the shared IP, we however never contributed to similar topics. I also understand that a clear notification of the shared connexion on our user pages would have prevented the suspicion of meat-puppetry. 3. I also understand why it may have led to a suspicion of sock-puppetry, I however never tempted to use more than one account to better weigh in a controversial discussion such as page suppression. 4. Thus, I would like to appeal to the blocking of my account Saskihw, as I have several ongoing editing projects that I would like to continue. In order to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, I will make all my contribution with this account henceforth.Saksihw (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Did you imagine that the administrator reviewing your unblock request would not check the editing history of your accounts? It is visible for anyone who takes the trouble to look that you used several accounts to support one another in a deletion discussion, evidently with the intention that they would be seen as separate people independently expressing similar views: one of your accounts even referred to another one in the third person. Your activities did not lead to a "suspicion" of sock-puppetry, as you suggest: they led to a clear and unambiguous recognition of sockpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (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.

JamesBWatson, As a follow-up of your response to my unblock request: be reassured, I did expect you to check the edition log. So, no need to use that upset tone, your competence and thoroughness weren't insulted in anyway (especially as I used a fairly respectful tone myself). I however disagree with you:

- The sockpuppet investigation led to the confirmation of 3 related accounts : Frenpahi, RogerBeaupoil and HervéBabylonia. I've already expressed myself about them and admitted my faults when relevant. NONE OF THEM were used in the deletion page procedure you referring to (that's why I think that the indefinite block should be reverted or mitigated).

- It also stated that the account Alaleutyr was LIKELY related. I used to live and share the same internet connection with that person, and our opinions about the page under scrutiny happened to match. So you could perhaps accuse me of meat-puppetry without better proof than your personal judgment. That would also indicate that two related persons cannot participate to the same topic on Wikipedia, which makes little sense. You could also accuse me of sockpuppetry assuming that none of what I said above were true and that I've been cunning enough to log out and log back in from another terminal to edit under another account, there again relying on your own conviction, without actual evidence. But you cannot claim that in that case the sockpuppetry is "clear and unambiguous".

- As a piece of evidence you're stating that "one of [my] accounts even referred to another one in the third person" in the deletion page procedure. I'd like to see where. If you referring to me (Sakshiw) mentioning the user Kymkym you must have seen that he's been cleared of any sockpuppetry suspicion.

I'm quite appalled by the unfairness, the subjectivity and the opacity of the decision process (both in the investigation and judgment), and of the disproportion of the sentence ("indefinite block" for someone who has been editing various projects over 8 years and never vandalized pages or broke the guidelines before), in stark contradiction with the spirit of openness and collegiality of the encyclopedia itself.

I've given up trying to convince you as your mind appears to be set. But I didn't want the case to be closed without highlighting that there were but weak evidence and one-sided interpretations regarding the core issue of using multiple accounts to have a page deleted. Hoping than other readers will be more sensitive to rational arguments than you... Saksihw (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I will answer a few of your points.

1. I have re-read what I wrote, and I have no idea what about it comes across as an "upset tone".
2. I said that you used several accounts to support one another in a deletion discussion; that is in no way contradicted by drawing attention to other accounts which you used or didn't use, but were not involved in that discussion.
3. You say that you are "appalled" by (among other things) the subjectivity of the decision process. When one has looked at the available evidence one has to make a judgement as to what is the most likely interpretation of that evidence: there is no other way of doing it.
4. I didn't say that one of your accounts referred to another one in the third person in the deletion page procedure, I just said that that one of your accounts referred to another one in the third person. Had you asked me about it a short while after I wrote that, I might have remembered where it was, but close to a month and a half later I don't, and the amount of time and trouble it would take to wade through all the relevant editing histories to try to re-find it could be better spent on other tasks.
5. Decisions about sockpuppetry are not, as you seem to think, made solely on the basis of technical evidence of sharing a computer, an internet connection, or whatever: the primary evidence is behavioural, and technical evidence may serve to assist. That is why, in my message above, I stressed the checking of the editing history of your accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)