User talk:Fairyday

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Way to Happiness. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please also note, relevant remedies applicable from Scientology arbitration case. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Fairyday (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why am I blocked?

Decline reason:

You are blocked because you aren't allowed to use a new username to avoid your block... haven't we had this conversation twice already this week, you and I? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 30 August 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.

Pardon me? I do not think that we had any conversation so far. Meanwhile I figured out that I was "blocked" on the suspicion to be shutterbug(?) which is a user name. The suspicion is based on what a user called "CIRT" says. This user is tagging people to be "shutterbugs" and then someone called Nishkid64 does some checking (this is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shutterbug&oldid=380781115#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments). The result was this: "It appears that these two groups of users are Unrelated. No open proxies as far as I can tell, just a lot of mobile editing, which makes it harder to connect the accounts to each other. The first group of users could be related to Shutterbug based on geolocation of IPs, but again, it's nothing concrete. Fairyday (talk · contribs) appears Unrelated to any of the above users, but could be Shutterbug based on location. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)" This behavior is very disturbing I must say! Do you see what I mean? Fairyday (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

see above.

Decline reason:

Nishkid64 says that although you are not one of the other groups, from your location you still could be Shutterbug. I see nothing to indicate that the block was incorrectly applied to this account. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:02, 3 September 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.

• Update: Checkuser has  Confirmed the Margaret's son (talk · contribs) account as a sock of User:Fairyday/User:Shutterbug, and has blocked it accordingly. See diff of log at arbcom case, Scientology. -- Cirt (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

hello? I feel like dizzed for something I did not do. I am not impersonating anyone! And the link above says nothing about me impersonating anyone either! All I can find is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:66.134.120.117 "someone" "suspected" that someone else used the connection I am using. BIG LAUGH! My internet provider must be used by hundreds if not thousands of people. Please review.

Decline reason:

Do not laugh. None of your unblock requests have addressed the real issue. You are not accused of impersonating these people; you are accused of creating those accounts for improper purposes and using them yourself. Your narrative has grown tiresome. I'm in a forgiving enough mood to not cut your talk page off now, but any further request that does not acknowledge the sockpuppetry accusation would be, IMO, grounds for doing so. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 30 December 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My statement is below.

Decline reason:

Hold on. I'm conversing with Chase me off-wiki to get this concluded one way or the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 9 January 2011 (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.

Before anyone declines this unblock, I'd like to see some evidence from a CU that this is actually a sockpuppet account, I've not seen any yet. All I see is a similar location, but apparently no other matches to any other accounts. We don't block people for being scientologists or making scientology edits, and I'm a little concerned that we're succumbing to shutterbug paranoia. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm unblocking you, because the evidence that you're Shutterbug seems to be slim at best. Wikipedia, several years ago, had a massive problem with Scientology staff members editing Wikipedia to push the idea that Scientology is a legitimate religion with no downside, and that its efforts throguh programs like the infamous 'Volunteer Ministers' are legitimate. Because of this, we're very wary about pro-Scientology editors. However, reasoning such as "from your location you still could be Shutterbug" is not a good reason for a block - we should be assuming good faith on your part, after all. The 'Scientology ban' extends only to Scientology IP addresses, not to entire cities, and I, along with others whom I have spoken to, believe that this may well be a false positive. However, if someone points me to solid evidence that you are in fact a banned user, I'll change my mind. A word of caution:w hen editing Scientology articles, bear in mind that it's a very tendentious subject, and that the currently accepted 'neutral point of view' lies considerably closer to the 'Anonymous' viewpoint than the CofS one. Finally, as Cirt pointed out above, you should bear in mind the relevant remedies applicable from Scientology arbitration case. I'm sorry that this has taken so long to sort out, and that you've had a poor experience. If you have any questions, feel free to get in touch with me or another experienced editor. Welcome to Wikipedia! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still unable to even edit my own user page because also my IP was blocked. Are there any remedies? 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Ok, let's be precise: I have no other accounts. Checkuser did not find any other accounts. I spent a little time reading and researching, almost all day yesterday. I was sick in bed and even if I am not done learning all the wikilingo this is a fascinating excursion, you'll see below. First I want to give you my full story. I don't know what else I can do and your comments were not exactly helpful to give me any directions. The below plea uses a lot of wikilinks and I apologize for that, aware that I could argue broader, but it seems that I was blocked because of one edit in a Scientology-related article by someone with a Scientology agenda. I was trying to find similar case histories and a lot of them are in the "suspected sockpuppet" class (for example "Shutterbug"): [1]).

I registered in August 2010, using my internet connection at work. My provider is paid by my employer (he is ok with me using the connection after hours) and our IT guy says that about 10 people are using the same connection plus occasional visitors or conference attendants. Our provider is a big company serving all of the United States. So "Margaret's Son" - my alleged "twin" - seems to be a client of the same provider and could be someone in our firm or one of our clients. Today I actually confirmed who it is but what does that matter? I registered my Wikipedia account with the purpose of adding something to a page called The Way to Happiness[2], a booklet that my employer (legal services) gave to all employees that day. This was my first and only Wikipedia account. And still is. I am not even vaguely "Shutterbug based on location"[3] or "User:Margaret's son" but I was blocked based on no evidence and bad faith. How did this injustice come about?

What struck me is that this piece of Wikipedia policy was neither shown to me nor any link given:

[4] Defending yourself against claims

If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse-nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.

If you are operating a legitimate multiple account and do not want to make this public, then please see alternate account notification, and email any checkuser, any Clerk, or any Arbitrator to ask for help.

If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sockpuppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

I certainly consider it bad faith not to inform me about my rights and it could have saved a lot of time for me and some Administrators as I could have made my point then. Also, I never was informed about the ongoing sockpuppet investigation and later I never received notice about the reason why I was blocked. I simply was "suspected" being a "sockpuppet" without my knowledge, which resulted in an immediate ban without proper recourse. The sockpuppet investigation pages normally allow the "accused party" to comment and defend ("Comments by accused parties" section[5]). A blocked user obviously has no edit access to the investigation page. Another bad faith action, if not extremely suspicious by now. It makes me curious.

Let's have a look who set me up with the claim of me being a "sockpuppet" in the first place, without informing me and without recourse: A user called "Cirt" (at least that is his current name, as he changed it three times in the last four years, from User:Smeelgova to User:Smee to User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (curiously this name is a pseudonym of Scientology student Werner Erhard[6] whose related pages Cirt is editing regularly) to User:Cirt). Cirt is editing articles on Scientology and anything somehow connected to it [7], sometimes up to 18 hours a day. A professional Scientology-article editor. Along comes me, doing a handful edits. One of them addressed an article Cirt obviously "owns", the result being that I was "suspected" [8] and banned and that my edits, regardless of whether in alignment with Wikipedia editing policy or not, were reverted. By Cirt, again[9].

That might not be enough for a theory that Cirt - a very experienced editor - is abusing the Wikipedia system to get rid of people who do not share his opinion/slant of editing. But - most of his article edits I looked up, more than 100 for sure, have slanted those articles in a way to make them negative about its Scientology-related subject, usually, or for the sole reason that they were done by a "banned" user. Some examples collected for the Abitration Committee:[10] And here he reverts edits because they had been done by a user he banned earlier: [11][12]. I am not an experienced editor but this last edit seems completely sourced and valid.

Cirt's bias is obvious and after extensive review it is not a question IF he is biased but if he can keep himself under control enough so that it does not influence his work. He tends to congratulate anti-scientology editors that support his bias (very recent examples: [13][14]) and welcome accounts that edit with a "single purpose" ([15][16][17][18]), something he blocks others for. Don't get me wrong: I support people contributing sourced material to Wikipedia. But I am think I saw rules against bias and one-sided editing, against single purpose editing, against a personal agenda and against actively awarding and supporting rule violations.

What else is this editor doing? Blacklisting anybody and everybody as "suspected" "Scientology sockpuppets". Are all these people sockpuppets or have they just been treated like myself? In any case it is not surprising that the editors that Cirt blacklisted were either opposing his viewpoint or tried to achieve neutrality in the articles they edited. Hardly any of them were charged with violating actual editorial Wikipedia policy and some had not even edited in Wikipedia at all! And all of these 40 or so people are allegedly the same person as me: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59].

(Complete lists: [60]][61] and [62]).

Pardon me, but SOMEONE'S forensic mind is SOUND ASLEEP here! Writing styles? Language peculiarities? Contributions: type, length, time? "Duck test"? "Behavioral evidence" per sockpuppet investigaton rules[63]? Some cases seem to have at least that, but maybe three out of over 40!

In short, the person who blacklisted me disagreed with one or two of my edits (not on technical grounds) and has been engaged in biased editing for a long time, seemingly without being reprimanded (not counting this:[64][65][66] as he did not stick to it anyway [67]). His bias and agenda caused him to skip "AGF", spread false information deep into Wikipedia admin pages and get me and numerous others banned without evidence and recourse.

All in all, I think you have been gamed, cleverly, slowly and subtly, like that Chinese Kuang Grade Mark Eleven virus William Gibson so nicely describes in Neuromancer [68]. Someone with a lot of time used the chance that your time is too limited to research user behavior. As a result Wikipedia rules have been undermined, bent and broken to kick me and others out of Wikipedia. Why such effort for a small editor like me? It does not make sense, unless you take into account that somebody might make a living out of biased editing and is indeed threatened by neutrality. I have no hard evidence to share at the moment but I would not be surprised.

At this point I don't care much if you unblock me or not. Obviously it would be a right action. Take a thorough look and please don't betray your own rules, consider evidence not rumors, "Cirt said it"s or unfounded claims. I am willing to help improve Wikipedia articles, I can learn fast and I am interested in proper execution of Wikipedia rules. Thank you for considering. Fairyday (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)