User talk:Rockybiggs

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rockybiggs for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

After the checkuser came back as confirmed with your accounts, I have blocked this account for three months. SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please note i have no control over my work place internet system where multiple people log in to the internet.(considering my work is based in Croydon, there are alot of palace fans) Please also note i also log in on a different ip address also, as well as the one ending 99, which an admin can quite clearly see (as i have forgot the exact number at this moment). You have also not looked at the positive i have brought wiki, like Recruitment in the British Army which i basically created from nothing, and many other contrubutions, I feel this ban is harsh (3 months) and should be reviewed. In the space of 20 minutes i was decided of being guilty and punished with no opportunity to respond. The user HACKNEY also mentions `as evidence sock puppetry in a disruptive edit `pair`, i can assure you this is not a disprutive edit, i just logged out with out knowing my hitting the back button on internet explorer. this user has obviously made this a personal crusade to have me banned without looking a positive edits of user: rockybiggs. Further point, please also note i have never made any edits on irish affairs either. In short to be handed such a ban when i have given wikipedia positive edits, and i have never been banned before is quite unbelieveable, and this surely a unjustified and over the top

Decline reason:

I'm glad you've made some productive edits. However: (1) you and the IP editor are obviously the same person, and in addition to that you made an account User:Irishrscum that beyond being a blatantly offensive username, was used only to try to cover up your misbehavior. Yes, you didn't have an opportunity to respond, but Alison has access to the IP numbers you connect from and after her confirmation there was no doubt about the use of multiple accounts. Ok, that said, it isn't actually such a bad thing to log out and edit anonymously that you should be blocked for 3 months. But that's not why you are blocked: you are blocked for disruption and trolling: examples of this include your many anti-IRA comments and personal attacks noted on that page, and the real sockpuppet you created. SirFozzie carelessly mentioned only sockpuppetry in your block summary, but the real reason is written in the WP:SSP report. We can't tolerate inflammatory behavior like yours: if you want to be unblocked before the 3 months are up, you will have to somehow convince us that it won't continue. Mangojuice^talk 15:03, 8 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Some of the abuses here are related too just two days on irish related pages, i don`t know where these `many` disruptions you mean, are ?. If this is the case i propose a self-ban from editing on all irish related issues (or imposed) by myself. I wish to proceed with the projects i have started and wish to continue and apologize for any mis-understanding. (A further request if a ban is upheld; and to save admin`s with another request i would also like to say if the ban is upheld i would will retire from wikipedia, and will ask for all the photos i have added to be removed, as i remove the right of wikipedia to publish them). Thank you, and hoping for a positive outcome.

Decline reason:

Confirmed by checkuser. — Ѕandahl 17:48, 8 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thanks to the admin Sandahl for the expansive answer. I can`t believe i have been blocked for so long, when other edits seem to be banned for a matter of days and weeks. As i have no other way of doing this I now no longer wish wikipedia to publish my pictures due to the way i have been treated on this site. Please explain how i go about this while being banned.

Decline reason:

This isn't a reason for unblock, and as to the images SirFozzie is correct ... you can't revoke the GFDL grant. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2008 (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.

{{unblock|As per my talk page, Community consensus of Athaenara, SirFozzie, and others, Indicates this ban iS too long, even the imposer of this ban SirFozzie indicates this. Please reconsider the length or total striking of the ban and i will conform to a self imposed PERMANENT topic ban for Irish articles, which has been seen as suffient by the community.}}

Just adding my bit. I think the three month block may be somewhat harsh if the user is willing to keep away from Irish articles, and maybe others relating to the British Empire. Rather than just dismiss him with a three word response, perhaps an admin might want to communicate with him regarding terms of an earlier unblock? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hackney, thank you for your comments, if you look at my edits regarding the British Empire they are wholey positive as its a field i am greatly interested in and have had nothing but positive edits towards, please see my history page and i think you will concur. This also applies to other empire related articles, such as Indian empire redirect, which i believe you mentioned as my edit war but in fact User:El C an admin gave everyone immunity from 3 reverts due to constant edit war by a user, Please see User talk:El C#Semi-Protection--Rockybiggs (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth, but I was definitely concerned at many comments you made here, where you said that comments made by the Cypriot president shouldn't be included as they were "Greek POV", and also that sources must be in English which isn't true. If you have made worthy contributions in other areas relating to the British Empire then I stand corrected, but your behaviour on that particular article and talk page gives me cause for concern. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Please note the other use was accusing me of British POV, not an excuse i know) I still feel the Presidents comments should not be there, as this is British Sovereign land, and whether he wants it back is immaterial, but this is my POV. But you will see the talk page, and an agreement/consensus was made between myself and the other user and he changed other comments and importantly it was resolved in a professional manner.--Rockybiggs (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's been knee deep in many nationalist arguments, it's best to leave your opinions at the front door whatever they may be. Now, where's an admin when we need one? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the whole sock-puppetry thing, I can vouch for the fact that Rockybiggs is a generally serious contributer to wikipedia. A 3 month ban may be a tad excessive. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a ban but a block, and I somewhat concur with Regents Park and One Night in Hackney. Would a 1 month block be more appropriate? — Athaenara ✉ 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if he sticks to his proposed topic ban regarding Irish articles. We have enough bad hand accounts as is, and the Irishr account was very incendiary in an area where we're trying to put out fires, not create new ones. By the way, you cannot revoke your permissions to the submissions you have already made. They're covered by the GFDL policy. SirFozzie (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I presume "you" refers to user Rockybiggs... To clarify my own post further: I support a topic ban (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions) of at least three months. The userblock itself need not be so long, I think, but as I knew nothing about this before seeing it in Category:Requests for unblock I hesitate to suggest any specific timespan. — Athaenara ✉ 04:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to reduce the block to one month, if Rockybiggs agrees that he will observe a topic ban on all Irish related articles indefinitely. That means he has to specifically request on WP:AN or WP:ANI, to have this removed. Say a mininum of three months? (that is, two months after his block expires?) SirFozzie (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments SirFozzie, i still feel one month block is a tough punishment, and would like this reduced. I am of coarse willing not to edit/comment or have anything to do with any Irish Articles not just for a short while, but forever, and therefore will have no need to have this topic ban lifted.

Rockybiggs (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think anything more than a week is excessive. I don't usually fall on the same side of issues with Rockybiggs but do think that he/she is a valuable contributer on various pages on the British Raj. Sockpuppetry does deserve punishment but it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater (or, since I'm in the mood - the quality of mercy is not strained ....).--Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Regents, a true gentleman as always. I must agree with you, regents, we are talking about 3-4 edits being made with an ip address, and its crazy that i have been banned for 3 months, 1 month let alone at all. Compared to real sock puppets.--Rockybiggs (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, it was significantly more than three edits, as there were other IP addresses involved. There was also the matter of a bad-hand account, mentioned already - Alison ^❤ 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

being generous i`d say 8 (over 4months). Other IP address (i only have access to 2 ip address) ? this gets more interesting, please advise further ? - compared to other situations on here, out of a offensive factor of 10 this is surely a 3--Rockybiggs (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I've no interest either way. Personally, a three-month ban is excessive. A one-month ... well, maybe not. I'm just making sure we all have the facts, is all - Alison ^❤ 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

why thank you.--Rockybiggs (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a one week ban (with time served)? After all, if he strays again, it'll be easy to justify a heavy ban. Meanwhile, he has promised to stay away from Irish Articles for a while. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Think that is up to SirFozzie or another admin to comment on.--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the sockpuppetry case, but I can say without hesitation that user:Rockybiggs has made positive contributions to British Raj-related pages and, in fact, has fought vandalism and POV-pushing there by others. One week, with time served, seems very reasonable (per user:RegentsPark's suggestion). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

As per community consensus witnessed on my talk page since the last appeal, the original ban length was reduced and IS deemed still too excessive by several members of the community, i again appeal that this ban be reduced as i am a serious editor and wish to continue to as time already served

Decline reason:

No admission of the sockpuppetry; no sign of recognition that sockpuppetry is bad conduct. —  Sandstein  11:58, 15 July 2008 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I again take dispute that ive not apologized for my actions, but i again apologize to everyone concerned, i relize sockpuppetry is wrong. But i also guide the reviewing admin to the comments to my good solid contributions to wikipedia.. Even though i relize the seriousness of my actions, i can`t change my previous actions, only the future actions and now wish this ban to be abolished. I feel this ban now needs to be lifted to keep myself involved in the various projects i.e Recruitment in the British Army and the may other pages i contribute to on a regular basis.

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 again take dispute that ive not apologized for my actions, but i again apologize to everyone concerned, i relize sockpuppetry is wrong. But i also guide the reviewing admin to the comments to my good solid contributions to wikipedia.. Even though i relize the seriousness of my actions, i can`t change my previous actions, only the future actions and now wish this ban to be abolished. I feel this ban now needs to be lifted to keep myself involved in the various projects i.e Recruitment in the British Army and the may other pages i contribute to on a regular basis. |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 again take dispute that ive not apologized for my actions, but i again apologize to everyone concerned, i relize sockpuppetry is wrong. But i also guide the reviewing admin to the comments to my good solid contributions to wikipedia.. Even though i relize the seriousness of my actions, i can`t change my previous actions, only the future actions and now wish this ban to be abolished. I feel this ban now needs to be lifted to keep myself involved in the various projects i.e Recruitment in the British Army and the may other pages i contribute to on a regular basis. |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 again take dispute that ive not apologized for my actions, but i again apologize to everyone concerned, i relize sockpuppetry is wrong. But i also guide the reviewing admin to the comments to my good solid contributions to wikipedia.. Even though i relize the seriousness of my actions, i can`t change my previous actions, only the future actions and now wish this ban to be abolished. I feel this ban now needs to be lifted to keep myself involved in the various projects i.e Recruitment in the British Army and the may other pages i contribute to on a regular basis. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}