User talk:Joppenheim

Welcome!

Hello, Joppenheim, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

69.127.45.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Spinoloricus". The reason given for Spinoloricus's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet invest

Blocking administrator: HelloAnnyong (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Now blocked directly. YOU, the person, are blocked from editing Wikipedia, under any username. Max Semenik (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Busted by po'boy's Checkuser. Admins, please compare Special:Contributions/Spinoloricus and Special:Contributions/Newspaperwriter10021 with this user's contributions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, he's having a 3-way (sock farm). That won't make for good press when taken out of context (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 5 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

editing was attempted through another computer in my own network under my control. There is no reason to block here; nothing adverse was attempted or done

Decline reason:

Using different computers is not a problem. Using different accounts to edit the same disputed article is a problem. Please disclose all of your accounts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2012 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

the spinoloricus account belongs to my son, who worked apart from me on edits. Since he is in my house his account is different but we use the same WiFi. However, his work and mine are not the same and I don't see why we should be prohibited. At the time we were blocked we were each working on adding historic photos to an article about our Village.

Decline reason:

This is typically considered meatpuppetry when it becomes disruptive; therefore, it's treated the same as sockpuppetry. --slakr^\ talk / 05:43, 31 May 2012 (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.

Please explain your relation to Newspaperwriter10021 (talk · contribs), then. --MuZemike 04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can imagine, we cannot see through the other end of the wires. That said, we actually can do some technical checks. One of the key things we tell families, co-workers, etc is that they should not be editing the same articles, even with different accounts. This really screws up wP:CONSENSUS because obviously two people in the same house/business usually have the same POV on a topic. If two people do edit the same articles, we will have no choice but to block for using multiple accounts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure of the ID Newspaperwriter10021. Could be one of my sons, but nothing that I am aware of. Was this emanating from my ISPN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.207.146 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now you're saying that you have more than one son? --MuZemike 02:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a daughter, a wife and a dog. What difference does that make? I haven't abused Wikipedia. My son merely worked simultaneously using his ID and password. That is the reason I was blocked. The purpose of the block is not to stop that kind of activity so I should be unblocked. Nothing incorrect was posted. The the contrary, I was attempting to add historical photos to the Village of Montebello Wiki page and my son was doing the same )he's more facile than I am). In any case, blocking this is unnecessary, unfair, and unindicated.

Another request[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).

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

Request reason:

And a daughter, a wife and a dog. What difference does that make? I haven't abused Wikipedia. My son merely worked simultaneously using his ID and password. That is the reason I was blocked. The purpose of the block is not to stop that kind of activity so I should be unblocked. Nothing incorrect was posted. The the contrary, I was attempting to add historical photos to the Village of Montebello Wiki page and my son was doing the same )he's more facile than I am). In any case, blocking this is unnecessary, unfair, and unindicated.

Decline reason:

First the Spinoloricus account was claimed to be the son's, then Newspaperwriter10021 was possibly also the son's (or of a different son). All three accounts have limited interests and they do not seem to be encyclopedic but rather promotional. The other two accounts (and possibly another one, Vschwaid (talk · contribs), an SPA) have collaborated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Oppenheim, and besides that edit the exact same things on Wikipedia. Now, I find it hard to believe that three accounts (possibly four) do the exact same things here but appear unsure about each others' user names. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2012 (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.