Tulipart
January 2014
edit
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
Tulipart (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet to User:Lawline and I have not abused multiple accounts. I have contributed to Wikipedia by writing an article about the counter-inaugural protests in 2001 which referenced various groups including Al Sharpton's National Action Network, the International Action Center, and Voter March. A similar Article exists for the 2005 Counter-inaugural Protests. I also made a request on behalf of a Louis J. Posner that the Biography of a Living Person (BLP) be deleted pursuant to his written request. I made it clear in the AfD nomination that my role was limited to bringing the AfD on behalf of Louis J. Posner, the Biography of a Living Person. I have not engaged in any disruptive editing and I intend on continuing to make valuable contributions to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your consideration.Tulipart (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (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.
the Posner article appears to be adequately referenced and written in a neutral tone. Given that the wish of the subject of the article is irrelevant, what other reason is there to delete it?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The Article on Posner was extensively rewritten and pruned and undue weight was given to the strip club arrest and prosecution, as opposed to other matters, such as Posner's achievements as an activist. Due to the undue weight of the article and due to the fact that certain editors have been extremely recalcitrant in fashioning the article as they see fit, the appropriate solution is to delete the article in its entirety. Also, the Article relies on tabloids like the New York Post which is against Wikipedia policy.Tulipart (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Tulipart (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.
Decline reason:
Word-for-word identical to the request by User:Tredgert, which is as clear an indication of sockpuppetry as you could wish for. Yunshui 雲水 11:25, 13 January 2014 (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.