UnbiasedVictory
UnbiasedVictory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I've been accused of using multiple accounts to edit articles on Wikipedia.. again, and believe I should be unblocked. I've made it clear before that everyone, administrators included, can do whatever it is they need to do to confirm that this is the only account I use on this website. I haven't made an edit while logged out either, so I really don't understand why I was blocked. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused, but I haven't broken any rules and feel this should be reversed. Thank you. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
On further examination, it appears I was mistaken. This was a rather complex SPI and it seems you got caught in the net. Please accept my apologies, and to make amends, should nayone ever have any questions about this block, please feel free to send them to me and I will gladly explain that it should not be seen as evidence of misconduct on your part. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all, thank you for taking the time to view and accept my request. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
March 2015
edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Colonial militia in Canada, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You can't just say that none of what you included is incorrect. BC talk to me 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just for the record, nobody has any particular reason to doubt that you're acting in good faith, but due to Wikipedia's open "anyone can edit" structure we do have a problem with people actually adding inaccuracies and outright falsehoods to our articles. So if you're going to change information in an article, please ensure that you're actually citing it to a reliable source by which we can verify that your edit is actually correct — this is especially critical if you're going against what another source in the article already says. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I understand, I've only added battles in which Canadian militia were known for participating and prevailing in, which the article had already listed without references so I didn't feel it was obligatory to provide one myself. I apologize for the confusion. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
See
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory
- this reqest (3:38, 18 December 2015)
- Not done (06:58, 19 December 2015)
- this exchange (07:56, 19 December 2015)
You can either force other editors to play Wack a Rat and stay blocked indefinitely or you can follow the advise in the essay Wikipedia:Standard offer keep to its terms and then apply at meta:Steward requests/Global for the account User:UnbiasedVictory to be unblocked. As you can only do that by using a sock puppet account, I suggest that you consider using Unblock Ticket Request System or email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC, requesting that someone else applies to meta:Steward requests/Global for you once you have followed the advise in the standard offer. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.