User talk:Afterlife10

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homebirdni for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. O Fenian (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, not! :( Afterlife10 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Belfast. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block, January 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at User talk:O Fenian. In addition, your editing on that page amounted to harassment. This is not acceptable and will result in a longer block if repeated. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rockpocket 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Afterlife10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware that anything I had posted on O_Fenian's wall was deemed offensive. How was I to know given that he had not left a message or reason to the reverts. I apologise profusely but I was completely unaware that I was doing anything wrong. I was simply trying to get the User_account to answer a question that they refused to do so on another talk page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Belfast#City_size_comparison, citing that it was not the correct page for the discussion, so I brought the question to his user talk page.Afterlife10 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked because you said anything offensive, but because you edit-warred. You cannot force others to answer questions and must accept that if they delete your messages, this means that they will not reply. Sandstein 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your edit summaries: "smirk", "lol" are not those of an editor unaware of the consequences of his reverting. Nevertheless, another admin will review the evidence and they can unblock you if they see fit, with no objection from me. Rockpocket 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was funny that the User account had requested so much that I answer to everyone of his points on the Belfast WP talk page that when it came to the user answering my questions, they were not prepared to do so. If I hear another user say that WP is a collaboration, only has to take at look at the inflexibility of O_Fenian to see otherwise. Obviously if I had known there were consequences I would not of reverted but given that O_fenian left no summary in the revert, how was I to know I was doing anything wrong?Afterlife10 (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok worth a try. I would not of reverted but given that O_fenian left no summary in the revert, how was I to know I was doing anything wrong? welcome to Wikipedia.ill remember this. when i am faced with a content dispute, just be obnoxious, fail to collaborate or compromise then report opposing editor for edit warring. got it!Afterlife10 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A plea of ignorance might have some credence if it was not for the fact, in the section directly above this, you received a warning of these consequences: In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Rockpocket 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but come on, I was editing on a user page. I assumed it was different given that a user page is not reader facing.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you take this 24hr break to read some of our policies to make sure you don't make such incorrect assumptions in future. Start with Wikipedia:Edit warring. Rockpocket 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a law against an uninvolved user removing my comments from O_Fenians talk page? [1] Afterlife10 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are no "laws" here, just guidance on how to act sensibly. If you called someone and they declined to talk to you for the 6th time, do you really think trying again is likely to be more successful? Is it really not clear that they might not actually want to talk to you? How is posting to their talk page any different? Just take a break, ok? You will be very welcome to return this time tomorrow. (And one last thing, you are welcome to remove other editors comments from your page also, but its generally seen as impolite when they are trying to help you. And if you do it to interfere with admin action, then you are likely to be blocked from editing this page too.) Good evening. Rockpocket 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blocked[edit]

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).

Afterlife10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked for editing on articles relating to Northern Ireland and accused of sockpuppetry. This morning I was a contributer to wiki. And when I came back this evening, I found out that I was subject to a sockpuppet case that has been opened and closed without a defense from myself. Evidence against me is that I comment on same articles as blocked user and another IP,and also for using similar punctuation. This is a very suspicious case against me and seems a bit unfair and unjust

Decline reason:

Behavioral evidence is strongly against you. Your defense isn't very convincing, you're simply mocking the evidence. And unlike noticeboard discussions, sockpuppet investigations do not require notification of persons involved; as stated at WP:SPI, "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." -- Atama頭 00:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Here is the SPI case raised against me, though I'm pretty sure I should of been made aware of this, I wasn't. [[2]]

In this SPI case I apparently sometimes end my signing with '. Afterlife10' and '.Afterlife'. This is exhibit A. Hard hitting and condemning.

And I edit sometime on the same pages as another blocked user. Ohh just so you, the accuser also contributes on the same pages with a number of other uses that also side with the accuser. hmmm..if your thinking this is some of way of muting me, you would be right. Sadly I'm not the first.

And the 3rd piece of evidence is that I joked that a friend emailed me to come on to wiki and take a looksie. I think the accuser has forgotten what a 'watchlist' is.

All this needs to be looked at by another admin with common sense.

Now to the tricky part, how should i finish my signing. ?@£$Afterlife10 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Afterlife10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Atama, I am not mocking the evidence, I am picking it apart, because it is very generic evidence and comparisons that could be made between any 2 users on wikipedia. I am not a sock of any user, how can I prove this if the evidence against me is sometimes I sign off using similar punctuation and I agree with on some topics, although not quite as aggressively as factocop or homebird. And although I was not aware of the SPI against me, I found it and the evidence was not very compelling. I think even yesterday I commented on some articles that Factocop or Homebird would not. I am pretty sure that a checkuser would clear me. I also think it is wrong to assume that if I comment on a page, that I was not 'watching' it. I am or I should be allowed to watch and comment on any page I want without fearing that my comments may agree with someone else who also commented on that page. In any discussion there is always 2 sides, and If I agree to one side of an argument, I am automatically a sock, is not what wikipedia is about and not what collaboration or community should be. I wish to be unblocked and I think there is insufficient evidence to continue this block unless a checkuser comes back to suggest otherwise. Also I should be allowed to copy and paste, it is my choice to copy and paste 'O_Fenian' in any discussion from previous comments. The block is irrelevant if I can't contribute to wikipedia freely, if i have to avoid every discussion where I agree with another user, or use fullstops instead of comma's, using what ever punctuation I want, then wikipedia has 'gone to the dogs'. I have picked apart the evidence and shown that I am not homebird or Facto so please unblock me now.

Decline reason:

Both the initial block and the re-blocking as a sock seem well justified. Your version of events is a bit too full of convenient explanations and coincidences to be believed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ohh also look at the 2nd user mentioned in the spi - IP 212.183.128.33. here are the article contributions he made [3]. This conbtributions were made before either myself or homebird were blocked and commented on a broad range of articles, all except carlingford lough were I think he agreed with me. Must be guilty? Goes to show how easy it is to get blocked if this user appears completely unrelated to me or homebird or factcop. %$%$Afterlife10 (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Homebirdni doesnt know how to short link to a url [4] as here. *Afterlife10 (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally a checkuser had previously been run in an older SPI case between myself and Homebirdni [5]. Unrelated! ##Afterlife10 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser cannot prove innocence. That simply means there was no technical link between the accounts, that is easy enough to do if you use different computers in different locations. That is the reason I presented behavioural evidence. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry O_Fenian(yes I used the underscore) but I have presented just as much evidence to counter your argument. Yes I agree with Homebird, but you also seem to share a similar stance to NorthernCounties, Mo ainm, Bjmullan and HighKing. Does that mean you are socks? Also NC [6] and HK [7] both sign off the same. This was pointed out by Homebird and subsequently NC removed the space in his signing. See here.[8]. So are they socks of each other?Afterlife10 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the IP was blocked, just because they edited on Carlingford Lough WP? look at the contribution history. The topics are so broad and spread over a period before you had either myself or Homebird blocked. Why did you pick on the IP? Afterlife10 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Afterlife10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Accused of sock puppetry for generic comparisons that could be made between any 2 users on wikipedia. I am not a sock of any user, how can I prove this if the evidence against me is sometimes I sign off using similar punctuation and I agree with on some topics, although not quite as aggressively as factocop or homebird. And although I was not aware of the SPI against me, I found it and the evidence was not very compelling. I think even yesterday I commented on some articles that Factocop or Homebird would not. I am pretty sure that a checkuser would clear me. I also think it is wrong to assume that if I comment on a page, that I was not 'watching' it. I am or I should be allowed to watch and comment on any page I want without fearing that my comments may agree with someone else who also commented on that page. In any discussion there is always 2 sides, and If I agree to one side of an argument, I am automatically a sock, is not what wikipedia is about and not what collaboration or community should be. I wish to be unblocked and I think there is insufficient evidence to continue this block unless a checkuser comes back to suggest otherwise. Also I should be allowed to copy and paste, it is my choice to copy and paste 'O_Fenian' in any discussion from previous comments. The block is irrelevant if I can't contribute to wikipedia freely, if i have to avoid every discussion where I agree with another user, or use fullstops instead of comma's, using what ever punctuation I want, then wikipedia has 'gone to the dogs'. I have picked apart the evidence and shown that I am not homebird or Facto so please unblock me now.

4 points:

1. Homebirdni doesnt know how to short link to a url [17] as here.

2. [18] - contribution history of IP also accused of being a sock here [19]. As you can see the IP has made contributions before either myself or Homebird were blocked and on a very broad range of topics. Why is this user also blocked?

3. A checkuser had previously been run [20] and came back unrelated between myself and homebird.

4. O Fenian also made the admission in the previous SPI that There is no indication from him that he is in fact the same editor

Decline reason:

I've looked at a lot of your contributions, and compared them to contribitions from Factocop and Homebirdni. And the similarity in style, tone, punctuation, and the number of common grammatical errors, convinces me that the probability you are the same person is high - it is far more than just the similarity of opinions and the sign-off. Also, as has been explained before, a negative CU proves nothing more than the suspects used different computers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This looks remarkably similar to your last request. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 4 points of evidence which you may of missed.Afterlife10 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Afterlife10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am starting to loose faith in this process and in this encyclopedia community. Unbeknown to me, apparently myself and homebirdni, factocop, and anon. IP., unbelievable really that after looking at all of the contributions that we all make the identical punctuation, grammar and behaviour is indentical given that all 4 users have not necessarily commented on the same pages. I find this very hard to believe. All Northern Ireland related issues are subject to conflict given the nature of Northern Irelands history and so in most cases it is the same users involved in most of the conflicts. This is the nature of wikipedia. I agree in part with the sentiments of my supposed socks but I am certainly not as aggressive. This is obvious. I am not the sock of any of these users and the fact that the IP has also been blocked even though that user is obviously unrelated goes to show that the SPI was a case of clutching at straws. I wish to be unblocked given that the evidence against me is as weak/strong as the evidence I present here.

4 points:

1. Homebirdni doesnt know how to short link to a url [17] as here.

2. [18] - contribution history of IP also accused of being a sock here [19]. As you can see the IP has made contributions before either myself or Homebird were blocked and on a very broad range of topics. Why is this user also blocked?

3. A checkuser had previously been run [20] and came back unrelated between myself and homebird.

4. O Fenian also made the admission in the previous SPI that There is no indication from him that he is in fact the same editor

Decline reason:

I'm very sorry if our low gullibility quotient has dimmed your faith in human nature. I really shouldn't have to explain why I don't find your purported evidence against sockpuppetry any more convincing than the other admins have (or as I did when you requested unblock as Homebirdni), but because you've been reasonably polite I will: What difference does it make (cue Smiths song) that all four users have not necessarily commented on the same four pages? Especially when it comes immediately on the heels of your admission that all four blocked accounts share a lot in common otherwise, particularly that you "agree with [their] sentiments". The preponderance of evidence, as laid out in your own unblock request, is against you here. As far as losing faith in the process, well, the feeling's pretty much mutual at this point, and it will not go beyond this point as I'm revoking talk page access so that administrators can spend more time reviewing requests from users who might have an actual case for unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Daniel, whatever happened to assuming good faith? I am not homebird, but looks like in this case you made another bad judgement and failed to read my comments fully. Ohh well. Guilty by use of punctuation, just as well this isnt a court of law or i'd fear there wouldnt be enough cells in the uk to cope. Can my account just be deleted? If my talk pages are to be revoked and there is not single admin available with common sense, then I'll not be able to make a single edit. Afterlife10 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Danny, your credentials as an admin are highly questionable with comments like this.[9]. Put simply - you are a joke!.Afterlife10 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

Further to this request for arbitration enforcement, I have indefinitely blocked your account, because you violated the revert restriction set down at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Your account was already blocked indefinitely by User:Daniel Case because you abused the block appeal process. I have removed this block, and replaced it with an indefinite block of my own, marked as an arbitration enforcement action, so that your editing privileges are not restored through a request to have talk page access returned (the standard for which is lower than for appeals of misconduct blocks). There is no expiry time for your block, because serial edit-warring causes significant damage to our articles, and is especially damaging in a topic area as contested as The Troubles. You can appeal this block in writing to the ban appeals subcommittee (BASC) of the WP:Arbitration Committee. AGK [•] 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]