Volunteer Eddy
May 2013
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer Eddy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had consensus for almost a day- multiple users agreed with my edit (fixing a mistranslation) & undid the other undos.
Next, to further prove I was right, I have three new sources proving the old translation was inaccurate.
So please unblock me. Volunteer Eddy (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring, not the content of your edits. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:22, 21 May 2013 (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.
Volunteer Eddy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
By wiki's definition, I was not the one "edit warring" but my foes: * "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I took the issue to the talk page, had at least two people agree with me, & they (until this morning) kept my version of the page up. (A short-lived consensus.) And if you unblock me, I'll take my new sources right to the talk page, & explain such, before I fix the mistranslation.Volunteer Eddy (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline of this request as the underlying issue has changed, as the newer request below reflects. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (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.
Block changed to indefinite
editPer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters, I've changed the block to an indefinite period of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer Eddy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Did you not read that page? Those people who accused me of being a sock essentially admitted they were wrong: * "I know JP pretty well by now and this Eddy guy comes off more... immature? JP's grammar and syntax tends to be pretty good, this guy's more given to random raving and ranting (with weird bolding of text and the like). And usually JP "used" reliable scholarly sources (though he'd lie about what was supposed to be in them) but this guy is using junk from the internet like this" Anyways.. A simple accusation of acting similar to someone else, with zero proof == banning someone? That's no better than a witch trial. Are you kidding me? Did you actually read the comments? I debunked every baseless/illogical accusation. UPDATE: I see you complained about my change here: (Note how all I did was change POV to NPOV:) OLD/POV: * While the famine was well documented at the time by journalist Gareth Jones, its reality has been disputed for ideological reasons. An example of a late-era Holodomor objector is Canadian journalist Douglas Tottle, NEW/NPOV: * Journalist Gareth Jones reported on the famine, although others dispute whether such is true, such as Canadian journalist Douglas Tottle, How is that (NPOV) a bad thing? How is that evidence that I shouldn't be able to edit? My edit did not even add/remove any info, but just rewrote POV to NPOV. Volunteer Eddy (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Regardless, we do know that you are a sock of someone, like Rediscoverer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 23 May 2013 (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.
Volunteer Eddy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dennis Brown debunked that: * "The Rediscoverer accts don't seem to qualify as an abuse of multiple accounts at this time, since there isn't any attempt to hide the fact that they are linked." -- Dennis Brown Similarly, wiki's rules say it's fine to have multiple accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses So, accusing someone of having multiple accounts is not a valid reason to ban someone. What you are doing to me is a great injustice, & I recommend you actually spend some time figuring out what's going on. There has been no evidence showing I am this "peter" person- all my edits were completely different. Read this carefully: Dennis Brown admitted I do not have the same style/writting-style as the "peter" person. (And claimed it was evidence I was him:) * "The overall behavior, styles (even after trying to change their style)" -- Dennis Brown He's saying that because I have a **different style**, that it's "evidence" that I'm him. Which is extremely illogical. It's like if you were looking for a suspect in a blue shirt, saw a guy in a red shirt, & said "this is evidence! he must have changed his shirt." You two admins are giving me a lesson of what's really going on on wikipedia. And I am shocked. > Regardless That sounds like you simply ignored everything I said. eg, how the two claims by Dennis Brown (1. that I have a different writing style & 2. that I changed a paragraph to NPOV without adding/removing any information) do not prove anything. Volunteer Eddy (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We're not saying we know for certain that you're Jacob Peters, but we do know that you're Rediscoverer. Using different accounts to edit in the same subject area without disclosing them is not allowed, because that will give you an unfair advantage in an editing dispute. Additionally, I am removing your access to this page; any further appeals can be made to WP:UTRS or WP:ARBCOM. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 23 May 2013 (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 Rediscover accts were handled stand alone, comparing them to each other only. Nothing from my statement should be taken as they can not be you or anyone else, and should be taken as stated, if those two are the same, then they weren't hiding it from anyone that those two accounts were linked. That King thinks they are linked also to Jacob Peters (via you) only reinforces the linkage, it doesn't diminish it. I will leave it to the reviewing admin to determine, but my faith in the linkage has not been diminished by any statements here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Responding to hijacking of my personal page
edit> There is unequivocal evidence that links Volunteer Eddy to at least two other accounts (please compare: Rediscoverer and Volunteer Eddy
Even if you were right (that I'm really a guy interested in guitars, Sigur Ros, engines, light-bulbs, etc,) all that'd do is paint me as an entirely different person than who you accuse.
It's blatantly obvious to me what's really going on:
You're censoring anyone who disagrees with you (& your allies) by accusing them of being this guy.
> No, this is not my words Volunteer Eddy quoted above.
Both you and V. Marek accused me of it, & Marek's words reveal he/she realized I was not the same person.
Your personal opinion is completely baseless. You are hoping that the admins will just ban anyone you accuse. This is exactly why I described this process as no better than a "witch trial."