Xi371n
Welcome!
|
Thank you! Xi371n (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Xi371n, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Xi371n! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC) |
January 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Rhett Grametbauer. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't add the image there, but I take your advice as good to know for the future. Xi371n (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Xi371n (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request to be unblocked because my account was recently investigated by checkuser Bbb23 who's findings were just barely possible. I have been continuing to edit Wikipedia attempting to add to and improve articles. Today I find that a spi clerk admin has placed a tag on my user page stating that I am blocked because a checkuser has confirmed that I am a sock puppet of another editor. I am not and the checkuser who investigated my account did not say that. Please unblock my account. I intend only to copy edit and continue to try to improve articles. Thank you. Xi371n (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have reviewed the behavioural evidence, and it's a near-perfect match. I don't think this level of similarity is coincidence. Huon (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2017 (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.
- I changed the tag on your userpage to "suspected" instead of "confirmed".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I thank you for your quick attention to changing that one word. When you stated that it was just barely possible and you did not block me, I was thankful that you could see that it was just barely possible. Did you complete some other investigation that I am not privy to? I don't understand how I can prove that I am just myself. So I get blocked for being suspected of being someone else. Do you have any hard evidence? I have't done anything to harm the encyclopedia. Can you please explain the process to me? Thank you. Xi371n (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- When I check at SPI, I post a finding about the technical relationship between accounts/users. I wouldn't check in the first instance unless sufficient behavioral evidence was presented. After I'm done, I have choices. One is to post a finding and take no action. The other is to post a finding and block. That's a discretionry call, but it's certainly partly based on the strength of the technical evidence. In your instance, I only posted a finding. The clerk can then make a decision as to whether to block. My finding doesn't have to be conclusive for them to block. In your case, King of Hearts blocked you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WordSeventeen to allow others to weigh in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your consideration. One thing I do wish to point out that was mentioned on the Brad talk page was that I was called somewhat dishonest by another when answering the question from Brad about how I knew about the investigation. I answered honestly that a notification appeared at the top of my talk page announcing that an editor has mentioned me at the investigation link. I clicked it and it took me there. The editor that started the investigation, said on Brad's talk page that it is impossible and went on to imply that I was dishonestly answering. Can any admin please confirm that since I went ahead and just clicked everything on my notifications preferences that a link popped up here because I was mentioned. Am I allowed to post on the investigation page? Any admin is welcome to log into my account and look at my notifications if possible. It has been implied that I am dishonest. I am not. That is one important point that does seem to have damaged my credibility. Thank you. *Xi371n (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WordSeventeen to allow others to weigh in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- When I check at SPI, I post a finding about the technical relationship between accounts/users. I wouldn't check in the first instance unless sufficient behavioral evidence was presented. After I'm done, I have choices. One is to post a finding and take no action. The other is to post a finding and block. That's a discretionry call, but it's certainly partly based on the strength of the technical evidence. In your instance, I only posted a finding. The clerk can then make a decision as to whether to block. My finding doesn't have to be conclusive for them to block. In your case, King of Hearts blocked you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
A few points to consider regarding points proposed by the spi poster: I graduated from college a few years back. I wrote many, many papers where I learned how to write references out and format them correctly. Carrie Fisher recently died. I was following her article. When there was a disagreement about some point, and I put back the original text and asked for a consensus to be gathered. Someone apparently asked for a third opinion so Brad appeared. I posted in agreement with him and that angered an editor. I don't really know why, but then he filed a report against me for being someone else. He has posted very generic improbable points such as three articles. I just pick from the recent changes page. There is no rhyme or reason, and certainly no indication of subjects I am interested in. I have strictly avoided that editor so they might not attempt to cause further problems for me. I saw on recent change people being welcomed. I read the page about the welcoming committee and tried thanking people. I am trying to be a member of the community here. Xi371n (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The relevant thread is here: User_talk:Bradv#Apparently_my_crime_was_to_agree_with_you. Note that the {{checkuser}} template does ping the user, so the "Impossible" claim on my talk page is wrong. Bradv 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Xi371n (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- King of Hearts, May I respectfully ask you to read my comments above about the points or "analysis" on the investigation, so that you may consider my side of things. I noticed you posted there you made a block based on an editors analysis there. Please consider what I have posted here, as I am not able to post on the investigation page at present. I ask that you would unblock me. It is serving no purpose to keep me blocked. For instance, in the time since the checkuser investigation has been completed, I have merely been improving articles. I have been working on the article Linda Vero Ban. When I reached somewhat of a roadblock, I looked for a project that worked with women writers on Wikipedia and asked for help. I left a message asking for help on there and an editor named Laurier responded and helped the article. They also graciously commented, good work on writing this article. Thanks for your consideration. Xi371n (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you again Bradv for taking the time to investigate the notification I received when a user filled out an investigation report and mentioned my editor name. I read the note on your talk page where you even found where the page was edited today so it would not notify users when they are mentioned on an investigation. Nice work. I appreciate it. But that editor is still 99.999 sure. I doubt there will be anything to convince him that he is wrong. Oh well, thanks again. Xi371n (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bbb23, I did some reading overnight at some of the other investigation reports in your system and at some of the posts at your talk page. It did bring another question to mind. The poster that reported me for being this editor W19 had contacted you in early December asking you to investigate that W17 was also the same as Matisse and one other name. Your answer to them was that, W17, Matisse, and one other editor were stale. I looked up what that meant and found the the WMF policy is to only keep info and logs and stuff for 3 months. Did W17 become not stale between the first part of December and now? I know I am not probably understanding all this correctly. When I looked up W17. And his profile it appears that he has never edited past the end of 2015. Is that why you stated just barely possible? Did you have access to any technical data of W17? I am not understanding the stale/not stale thing. Please explain this process and your thinking on the matter. Also, just one other thing, Since a big part of the report included mention of this other editor Pacquilicince, I was wondering if you have enough data to compare me with them. I did notice overnite Bradv found the link where someone changed the programming back another way so the subject of a report will not receive a notification. You are still welcome to log into my account and see the notification yourself. Is there a way to have my posts here that are defending myself added to the investigation report that King of Hearts reopened. He wanted others to weigh in on the report. I think it is only fair that my defenses be added there so any readers can hear my defense, so they have a full picture from both parties. Thanks for your time. Xi371n (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I cannot answer all your CheckUser questions because I'm not permitted to by policy. I cannot log in to your account as I don't know - and don't want to know - the password. I think you should let the notification thing go. I believe you were notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, while I do agree that you may have received a notification on your account from the checkuser template, I'm still qui°°te sure this account is a sock.
- If you would like to be unblocked, please disclose all other accounts that you have used to edit Wikipedia. Bradv 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bbb23, I did some reading overnight at some of the other investigation reports in your system and at some of the posts at your talk page. It did bring another question to mind. The poster that reported me for being this editor W19 had contacted you in early December asking you to investigate that W17 was also the same as Matisse and one other name. Your answer to them was that, W17, Matisse, and one other editor were stale. I looked up what that meant and found the the WMF policy is to only keep info and logs and stuff for 3 months. Did W17 become not stale between the first part of December and now? I know I am not probably understanding all this correctly. When I looked up W17. And his profile it appears that he has never edited past the end of 2015. Is that why you stated just barely possible? Did you have access to any technical data of W17? I am not understanding the stale/not stale thing. Please explain this process and your thinking on the matter. Also, just one other thing, Since a big part of the report included mention of this other editor Pacquilicince, I was wondering if you have enough data to compare me with them. I did notice overnite Bradv found the link where someone changed the programming back another way so the subject of a report will not receive a notification. You are still welcome to log into my account and see the notification yourself. Is there a way to have my posts here that are defending myself added to the investigation report that King of Hearts reopened. He wanted others to weigh in on the report. I think it is only fair that my defenses be added there so any readers can hear my defense, so they have a full picture from both parties. Thanks for your time. Xi371n (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you again Bradv for taking the time to investigate the notification I received when a user filled out an investigation report and mentioned my editor name. I read the note on your talk page where you even found where the page was edited today so it would not notify users when they are mentioned on an investigation. Nice work. I appreciate it. But that editor is still 99.999 sure. I doubt there will be anything to convince him that he is wrong. Oh well, thanks again. Xi371n (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- King of Hearts, May I respectfully ask you to read my comments above about the points or "analysis" on the investigation, so that you may consider my side of things. I noticed you posted there you made a block based on an editors analysis there. Please consider what I have posted here, as I am not able to post on the investigation page at present. I ask that you would unblock me. It is serving no purpose to keep me blocked. For instance, in the time since the checkuser investigation has been completed, I have merely been improving articles. I have been working on the article Linda Vero Ban. When I reached somewhat of a roadblock, I looked for a project that worked with women writers on Wikipedia and asked for help. I left a message asking for help on there and an editor named Laurier responded and helped the article. They also graciously commented, good work on writing this article. Thanks for your consideration. Xi371n (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Xi371n (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is good to always be clear Bradv, I do request to be unblocked. I received as a Christmas gift on Christmas Eve this brand new smartphone with great internet. I registered that night. I was really exited to be able to edit Wikipedia. Now not so much. My account is the only account I have. You can respectfully believe anything you like. But a checkuser comment of just barely possible based on an apparent investigation comparison with a stale editor doesn't even make sense to me. I understand Bbb23 must follow his policies, but on the 10th to 12th of December on his talk page he declared that W17 was stale. Since I have to draw my own conclusions since he cannot comment, it really makes be wonder how any stale editor could be compared with anyone past the three month deadline before logs are sealed or whatever. That compared with the "report" that made generalized points that I have disproved in my statements above, leaves little credibility to the whole investigation report. Also, you should really take with a grain of salt this posting editors report when you look into their background. They have been blocked numerous time for harassing others and other offenses. I had to close out my browser because there was way too much information on that to read. Bbb23 can you add my defenses here to the report? Can you add the editor Pacquilicince to the report to be checkusered against me since a large part of the report accusingly compares me to them? I know no other was to prove that I am no one else but me. Thank you for your time everyone. Xi371n (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)