User talk:Stravin

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What! This has come as an absolute surprise to me as I have been blocked and banned from editing wikipedia indefinitely for something I did not do and something that I have never practised as a wikipedia editor. I am not affiliated with the other users blocked in this dispute, in fact I found the User:Watchover's edits to be particularly disruptive and on the few pages that i came in to contact with him, i merely attempted to fix what he had done, see here for example: Robert Menzies and in the aforementioned List of leaders of the Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division) (furthermore this is the first time i have heard of User:Cantwejustbefriends). If you would care to examine my edit history I have a fine record of constructive edits and many created pages under my belt (did you actually look at my edits?), and a barnstar for fighting vandalism. You would be hard pressed to find a single bad edit in my history, at least a recent one anyway..... I would have like to have thought that I was getting my username out into the wikipedia community through good solid work done improving pages and not disrupting things as often as i could. I realise that some of my edit may have been unpopular with other editors or were disputed or removed but I like to think that i was always acting in the best interests of wikipedia. This block , while I can't see how you came to this conclusion, is completely unjustified and unfair on my part. I do however admit to the charges of using an IP address, though this was used very sparingly and often it was used when I had forgotten to login to my account, indeed I prefer to edit with my account as it adds to my name and reputation. In the page Davidson High School the accuser used as an example of using an IP address, i admit fully, but none were to the detriment of the page and most are in the earlier section of the page or older edits like July 2009 and September 2008. I have contributed nothing but good information and good skills to Wikipedia, here are a few examples of my handiwork: The work in cleaning up and working against a real edit disputer and sock puppet in Victor Dominello Extensive contribution to: Robert Menzies, Eric Willis - achieving a B-class rating for the page, Davidson High School (New South Wales) - also achieving a B rating, Terry Metherell, Bronwyn Bishop, Barry O'Farrell, Christopher Pyne and many others.... Created pages such as: Julie Sutton (mayor), Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Maddison, David Arblaster, Bruce McDonald (Australian politician), Davidson state by-election, 1992 and List of Australian High Commissioners to the United Kingdom. I am surprised that I was even associated with watchover and editors who give wikipedia a bad name and that despite my good record I habe been blocked. This is very demoralising and also very surprising to me as i recieved no prior warning to the charges against me and the investigation lasted only two days, days in which i have been unable to access a computer, so more unfairness. Furthermore I am surprised that I was even linked with User: Watchover, even the accuser recognised that: "Kapitalist and Stravin overlap in an interest in the Warringah Council area of northern Sydney, while Watchover's lays further north in the Hunter Region", a good indication as to where I am based as opposed to Watchover. As another point: "If looking at all three editors highlighted in the last SPI, all three have edited at Electoral district of Ku-ring-gai, a rather obscure article, while there is an overlap over NSW politics generally" - (User:Orderinchaos) How is this evidence? The mere fact that I edited on a couple of the same pages as some other editors does not mean that I am a sockmaster for those pages. By that definition many others could fall victim to the same flawed conclusions, and I dont think that is what I should remember wikipedia for. As an aside, my block also goes against two of the aims of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: * Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia - prevents me from improving wikipedia and fighting against vandalism of pages * Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit - is dettering me from contributing my knowledge and skills of editing to wikipedia. I vehemently deny the accusations against me, most of which are based upon flawed and circumstantial evidence, I would like to request, in the strongest possible terms, that i have my account restored and acquitted of these charges against me. Regards Stravin (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC) - I am proud to sign those four tildes, though it may be my last signoff...

Decline reason:

Regrettably decline. CU results are *very* difficult to challenge (especially Likely or Confirmed), since the majority of administrators do not have access to the tool and for the most part (Watchover's case being an exception) the results are taken at face value unless there is good reason to assume otherwise (such as another CU finding differently or sudden variances in behavior). My suggestion is to take the advice given below - challenge the block by contacting the Arbitration Committee. The ArbCom members all have Checkuser, so they'll be very much capable of checking the circumstances around your block - at least certainly much better than the administrative rank-and-file. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 18:31, 7 January 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry

As this account has been identified as a sockmaster for the accounts User:Watchover and User:Cantwejustbefriends, as well as numerous logged-out IP edits, this account is blocked indefinitely. Orderinchaos 00:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"You would be hard pressed to find a single bad edit in my history" - for the record - I agree, I noticed that myself when I was reviewing your edits, there's plenty of constructive stuff there. A confirmed checkuser (actually pretty hard to get a "confirmed", if there's any doubt at all they say "Likely") and many, many instances where your editing closely overlapped with Watchover's, struck me as a prime example of "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption. (from WP:SOCK). Orderinchaos 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I included Kapitalist on the SPI the second time as the first time had been inconclusive and confusing and I saw this as an opportunity to get clarity. I myself wasn't convinced there was a link, my analysis of the edits suggested the two sets of edits were on different tracks, but the holiday period made it difficult to get a second opinion despite my best efforts. The second checkuser looked at it and said "Unrelated". The second checkuser is someone who is generally regarded at the best at what she does, so I think that one's been dealt with. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading the extensive debate on User talk:Watchover, and I can't help but agree with some of his points. We may have been on similar pages but does not mean that I am a sockmaster. To quote: "I do not know him". He also is making an assumption that I am a parliamentary officer...this is not true, in actual fact i am a student unrelated in any way to the NSW Parliament, except for the fact that I am interested in NSW politics.

"Assuming that Stravin is a parliamentary officer as he said he is, it is possible he could have been (there were 12 computers in total) one of the 11 others working the net and editing Wikipedia at the same time. I am trying very hard to find out who it is but they dont want to tell anyone, why I don't know. I have a feeling they have just opted to do the cowardly think and hop on another computer and create another account (would someone like to do a check and see if there is any new similar activity)." - Now this is not on, I have not revealed myself because I prefer a little bit of privacy when using my account, furthermore I would not like to start a new account... I want my one! I want to continue to be Stravin! (Cowardly? Thats a bit much). I did find one of the many interactions between me an him here. This watchover fellow is really getting on my nerves, not only has he brought wiki administration upon himself but its also getting me, the editor who got too close to watchover's edits. Orderinchaos surely you can see that I am unrelated to Watchover, I have always tried to do the best I can in Wikipedia, when you look a Watchover's edit you will find a distinctly different style and a lot of his edits even when attempting to be contructive were sometimes not up to standard, leading to conflict with others. I don't think it is such a clean-cut case of "good hand - bad hand" sockpuppetry. I've come in to contact with you on many pages before, particularly those related to psephology. To all administrators: look at the facts before you and you will find me absolved of guilt - I am innocent! Stravin (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to address the accusation of my relation to User:KAPITALIST88. This is the least important as the evidence against me here is weak at best. The clear homophobic tendencies of this editor and the predominance of using the 'f' word are absolute opposites of who I am, I do not swear, and I am not a intolerant person in any way. Furthermore we have no or few relative edits, most of his predominate in the gaming or other interests columns with a few politcal edits as well. This assumption that i'm also this fellow is the most insulting because of his grossly rude and intolerant manner. I await your decision...Stravin (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhat out of our hands - how do you explain that someone with access to the database and the raw edits has "confirmed" (the highest possible certainty a checkuser can give) that Watchover and you are alternate accounts? They have access to months of edits and would not give such a certain result unless there was a very close and consistent match over that period of time. I really do want to assume good faith here, but I can't explain it from what you've said above. Were this a slightly more uncertain case I myself would be minded to unblock you and leave the other accounts blocked, but there's a serious question hanging over this. Orderinchaos 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am really shocked by this. I am totally Innocent! I am student with no employment whatsoever with the NSW Parliament. How can you say that it is out of my hands? This is really beyond the pale...I can only take so much. There is something massively wrong in the checkuser's conclusions. To think that I have been embroiled in this debacle for editing in the pages I am interested in. Watchover seems to have confused me with the sockpuppet User:Gammon who I came into conflict over his ownership of the Victor Dominello page. He also was blocked for socking with this IP: User talk:202.146.8.4 archived here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gammon/Archive. I don't know what else to say, everything is telling me to abandon Wikipedia altogether, but something is telling me to at least present my case. If this has gone too far to warrant you letting me off, perhaps i should refer this to the Arbitration Committee? I don't understand if the point of a block is to prevent disruption, where on earth is in my record this 'disruption'? Stravin (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to this. If there was any doubt about the result (i.e. "Likely" or less), then your personal past record on this account would enable me to argue a case to other admins so they wouldn't think I was completely crazy for negotiating with you to ensure your return. Because there is no doubt about the result, I personally speaking am not in that position. You could contact the Arbcom, they have an email address on the page you linked and they would also be able to cast a new eye over the evidence. If they, with the private information they can see and I can't, chose to unblock you, I would not stand opposed - or put another way, if there's anything in the technical evidence which proves you and Watchover are not the same person, then whatever disruption Watchover has committed would then become irrelevant. As it stands, I'm obliged to consider the situation based on Watchover's contribs as much as your own. Orderinchaos 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't say it was out of your hands; he said it was out of our hands. Because there's a confirmed checkuser it's out of the hands of admins to just overturn the block. There's no point in continuing this discussion on-site for that reason, as I've told the other account several times, unless you have compelling evidence otherwise, you're going to need to contact the arbitrators or the checkusers via the information I posted on the other accounts talk page. Since you're quoting the other talk page, I presume you have that information. That's really your only realistic avenue of appeal because with a confirmed checkuser none of us are going to be prepared to step in and undo the block. So you're really just wasting your time with these protestations and getting worked up about what the other account has said and should just send an email to the checkusers and arbitrators if you want to appeal. As for where the disruption is, abusive sockpuppetry is disruption. Sarah 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you don't have email enabled for your account either. I was going to suggest you email the checkuser (User:Alison) but you won't be able to do that and (same as I told the other account) will just have to appeal to the checkusers or the arbitrators via the mailing list. Sarah 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advice. I have emailed the Arbitration Committe concerning this matter. You have not heard the last of Stravin. I maintain my innocence in this matter. Regards Stravin (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Orderinchaos 07:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd note that engaging actively in sockpuppetry while asking ArbCom to review your case is probably not going to be favourable to your case. I would point out the standard offer - don't sockpuppet on en.wikipedia for 6 months and you'll probably be allowed back on this account. Orderinchaos 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For your information, my case was rejected by the arseholes at Arbcom. I am sick to death of you insufferable know-it-alls who think they can play god over everyone else. Well let me tell you I have done nothing wrong to wikipedia and what do you do? You slap me in the face and pretend as if nothing I have done on this site is of any consequence. I don't give a damn what an ignorant and flawed checkuser system says. I am innocent and don't you dare say otherwise. I have had enough and if you think that I'll come back in six months crawling on my knees begging for forgiveness for something I did not do, you wretched people have another thing coming. All your actions have done one thing only, and that is making no doubt in my mind that editing here with any merit is a completely usesless undertaking, and something that I have no qualms in abandoning. Farewell and fuck off! Stravin (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)