User talk:Spacefarer

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am a real person and am a computer science professor, and I have had two accounts, Spacefarer and FreedomByDesgin because I edit with different purposes and do not want them crossed. I believe I have not edited any of the same pages, so I don't understand this blocking. It seems like I chimed in on something, as is wanted by Wikipedia, and got penalized for it. Please let me know what is best to do next.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am a real person and am a computer science professor, and I have had two accounts, Spacefarer and FreedomByDesgin because I edit with different purposes and do not want them crossed. I believe I have not edited any of the same pages, so I don't understand this blocking. It seems like I chimed in on something, as is wanted by Wikipedia, and got penalized for it. Please let me know what is best to do next. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am a real person and am a computer science professor, and I have had two accounts, Spacefarer and FreedomByDesgin because I edit with different purposes and do not want them crossed. I believe I have not edited any of the same pages, so I don't understand this blocking. It seems like I chimed in on something, as is wanted by Wikipedia, and got penalized for it. Please let me know what is best to do next. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am a real person and am a computer science professor, and I have had two accounts, Spacefarer and FreedomByDesgin because I edit with different purposes and do not want them crossed. I believe I have not edited any of the same pages, so I don't understand this blocking. It seems like I chimed in on something, as is wanted by Wikipedia, and got penalized for it. Please let me know what is best to do next. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Spacefarer (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm asking the CU, YellowMonkey, who blocked FreedomByDesgin for more info. If you use two accounts for different purposes, it's best to declare that on both user pages to avoid situations like this. Note FBD has recieved disruption warnings too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you got caught up in a spree of checkusers intended to find sockpuppets in a request for adminship debate. Could you elaborate more on how you use these two accounts? This is potentially a valid use of multiple accounts, but we usually ask that such accounts are openly declared to avoid situations like this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It also seems that the articles your accounts edit while different, do have something in common. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To reviewing admin: In addition to the (confirmed) checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway, please also see this discussion thread at WP:ANI about FreedomByDesign, this warning by an admin to this user's confirmed sock FreedomByDesign, and the block of FreedomByDesign by CU YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only blocked one account and left the other, but they are definitely the same and edited the same topic. Tiptoety decided to block the other, effectively banning the guy, which is his choice. One was about Landmark, and the other about its owner. There is an overlap. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 05:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting bits of input from all concerned. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there is cause for concern here. These two accounts haven't edited the same article but the areas they edit in are not in any way distinct, they are closely related, and thus in my opinion this constitutes an inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Also, the comment on Cirt's RFA is concerning: I note that the WP:ANI report mentioned above was made by Cirt about FreedomByDesign; it looks to me as if Spacefarer and Cirt haven't had any real interaction, so the use of Spacefarer to make the comment rather than FBD seems inappropriate to me, as if it were a move to legitimize the comment. That said, I see the need to block one of these accounts indefinitely but not both. I would like to see Spacefarer's block reduced to, say, 48 hours. Mangojuice^talk 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify how the two accounts have been used deceptively or disruptively? Have the voted on the same issue? Been used to push a false consensus? Just curious as to the specific disruption being accused of here. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My issue is an illegitimate use of multiple accounts. This account focuses on an education company; the other focuses on that same company's founder. These are not separate areas, and it's avoiding scrutiny to hide the link between the accounts. Additionally, I find it concerning that the other account (User:FreedomByDesign) seems to be the main account, used for more diverse activities, and also is the one who apparently had a negative interaction with Cirt, but it was this one, with the clean warning record, that made the harsh oppose comment in Cirt's RFA. The user is entitled to his opinion and is entitled to have voiced it... but the use of Spacefarer to do it looks to me as if it is an attempt, again, to avoid scrutiny. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education has been a hot zone of biased editing. Based on the evidence already cited in this discussion, I think this user has been purely disruptive with this and their other accounts, and that they should be indefinitely blocked. Note that I uncovered some of the socking at Cirt's RFA and filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)