User talk:Spacefarer

Unblock requests

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).

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.

Decline reason:

I'm declining this as your statement is untrue given the evidence below. If you wish to take advantage of Rlevse's offer, to use the one account, then please provide an acknowledgement of past behaviour and an agreement to change going forward in a new unblock request. — Step hen 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Mango juice^talk 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Mango juice^talk 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 disruptive with this and their other accounts, and that they should remain 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)[reply]

Agree with Jehochman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacefarer--You did more than just "chime in on something". Edits of both accounts are rather focused on landmark education and related topics. If you agree to use only one account for all purposes, I will unblock as I think you have potential to be productive. Otherwise I'll have to decline this unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Under no circumstances undo this block without consulting ArbCom, to whom I have forwarded the evidence regarding possible harassment by this user.~~ Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My offer is rescinded pending investigation of this material which I am in receipt of. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incident I mentioned has been attached to a different user. SpaceFarer was unrelated to that matter. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My offer is reinstated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I would be happy to state on the user pages the purposes of the accounts, or use one account, if it is better. Because Erhard sold his company in 1991, he has become a separate entity, and I think it is important to keep them separate.

Decline reason:

reason —one account means one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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| I am trying to say one account is fine with me. Please give one account back. This one I have edited space-related articles as well, and would like to keep doing those edits as well. Thanks.}} Spacefarer (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a second chance if the user will be working on space articles, such as gamma ray burst (nudge). Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per your agreement to use only one account in a constructive manner.

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing

I see that you have been unblocked. I hope you enjoy making positive contributions to space-related articles, and perhaps take up Jehochman (talk · contribs)'s recommendation to work on the article Gamma ray burst. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation against you

Hi Spacefarer

Are you aware of this accusation against you: [Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs]? This looks like an attempt to condemn you without giving you an opportunity to defend yourself. DaveApter (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of articles for deletion

These three articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estate of Jack Slee v. Werner Erhard) very obviously meet WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and therefore should not have been nominated for deletion as failing notability. Please do not make such nominations again as it is considered disruptive. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page. Spacefarer (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that part of your unblock agreement was that you would not edit that topic area, and yet you have and in a disruptive nature. Please consider this your only warning. Any further disruption will result in a block. Tiptoety ^talk 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any agreement about not edit something. Spacefarer (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]