User talk:Douglas Mortimer: Difference between revisions
fix |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely''' from editing for {{#if:[[WP:SOCK|abusing multiple accounts]]|'''[[WP:SOCK|abusing multiple accounts]]'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. {{#if:yes|<font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 --> |
<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely''' from editing for {{#if:[[WP:SOCK|abusing multiple accounts]]|'''[[WP:SOCK|abusing multiple accounts]]'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. {{#if:yes|<font color="darkorange">[[User:Tnxman307|TN]]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>[[User talk:Tnxman307|X]]</big></font></b><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Tnxman307|Man]]</font> 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 --> |
||
==Points== |
|||
When were any of the three accounts notified of the investigation which began on 3 January? There is a section in the investigation page that invites "comments by accused users". The reason it is blank is that no one took the trouble to invite the accused user to take part. This means you have abused the procedure by not allowing the "accused user" to have any say in the process. |
|||
'''See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance]] — point VI of How to open an investigation. It says: "Notify all the users you are accusing using the template, etc.''' |
|||
Why has the procedure allowed initial evidence and one later comment to be submitted by an IP address? This is an important point given that the investigation was aware of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft]], although that investigation was initiated 10 days later. If you read the Richard Daft evidence and all the edits done by Daft/Tillman/Gall/etc. you will see that he carried out a campaign of harassment against [[User:BlackJack|BlackJack]] over a two year period. Given the extensive use of IP addresses in that campaign, how do you know the initial evidence on 3 January is not another example of it? |
|||
[[User:Orrelly Man|Orrelly Man]] replaced BJ in early 2009 because of the harrassment and probably that should have remained the case. The use of both in December 2009 was to "flush out" the Tillman/Gall user and it was successfully done, as that person did finally get blocked across all his usages. |
|||
You will note that both BJ and OM were flagged as "busy" just after that (probably should have been "retired") and then this account was opened so that I could continue to work in peace, or so I thought. I fail to see what the current account has done that could possibly be a problem: check the contributions. --<b>[[User:Douglas Mortimer|El Colonel]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:Douglas Mortimer|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:54, 27 January 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Points
When were any of the three accounts notified of the investigation which began on 3 January? There is a section in the investigation page that invites "comments by accused users". The reason it is blank is that no one took the trouble to invite the accused user to take part. This means you have abused the procedure by not allowing the "accused user" to have any say in the process.
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance — point VI of How to open an investigation. It says: "Notify all the users you are accusing using the template, etc.
Why has the procedure allowed initial evidence and one later comment to be submitted by an IP address? This is an important point given that the investigation was aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft, although that investigation was initiated 10 days later. If you read the Richard Daft evidence and all the edits done by Daft/Tillman/Gall/etc. you will see that he carried out a campaign of harassment against BlackJack over a two year period. Given the extensive use of IP addresses in that campaign, how do you know the initial evidence on 3 January is not another example of it?
Orrelly Man replaced BJ in early 2009 because of the harrassment and probably that should have remained the case. The use of both in December 2009 was to "flush out" the Tillman/Gall user and it was successfully done, as that person did finally get blocked across all his usages.
You will note that both BJ and OM were flagged as "busy" just after that (probably should have been "retired") and then this account was opened so that I could continue to work in peace, or so I thought. I fail to see what the current account has done that could possibly be a problem: check the contributions. --El Colonel | talk page 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)