User talk:CIS

Could not place this on main user page because blocked from doing so... please delete User:CIS page:

This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by its user. Note that in some cases such pages may need to be retained for administrative purposes. Before deleting, administrators are advised to check the contribution history of such pages to be sure they are not deleting a user talk page that has been moved. See CSD U1. Blocked indefinitely

If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion.
This page was last edited by CIS (contribs | logs) at 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (13 years ago)[reply]

August 2011

Blocked indefinitely as an incorrigible repeat sockpuppeter

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppeter violating Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you wish you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit. Even though you switched names 3 minutes later, it's still in the edit history. You couldn't stop yourself? Didn't you learn from the blocking of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CIS? I guess Steven Evens (talk · contribs) was supposed to be used for all the controversial converting BCE/CE to CE/AD stuff, after your last block. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Explain how I was in violation of any of these: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts. — CIS ^(talk

Decline reason:

Per discussion below and user's record, which makes any good faith forfeit at this point. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (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.

That diff shows you changing the CIS siggy to Steven Evens', which suggests that Steven is a sock that was created to avoid scrutiny. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it shows is that I accidentally posted a comment with the wrong account, not that I was trying to avoid scrutiny. I didn't change any sigs, I just reverted my CIS account's contribution and re-entered it with the other account. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been using two accounts to promote the same POV that got you in trouble in the first place. You've been doing it for almost four years. You have not presented any reason why you need two accounts for this, except to avoid scrutiny. You've been previously blocked for using multiple accounts in exactly this way. Do you have any other accounts besides these two? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the edits I've made with the Steven Evens account since its July 21 resurrection have not violated any policies, and have not pushed any POV at all. The discussion I had about BCE/CE on the talk page for the MOS was discussion I preferred to use an alternate account for because I'd already made a similar proposal with the CIS account, and I didn't want to sound repetitive, but did want to reintroduce the proposal to a potentially new set of contributors/readers, some of whom did end up agreeing with my proposal. If you read though it, you'll see that I wasn't even advocating for BC/AD, I was polling the community on a possible compromise that would use a combination of both notations. And to answer your question, no, I don't have any other accounts. Anyway, I think an indefinite block is a little harsh here, especially given my numerous positive contributions all through the encyclopedia that have no relation to the BC/BCE issue. The Christmas intro? I wrote it. The Simsub intro as well. I've also not violated the WP:ERA guideline in years. But, you're the administrator and you clearly have a previously existing disdain for me. I'd ask that you have some mercy, but it's up to you. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original proposal using my main CIS account that I wanted to bring up again without seeming repetitive. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have other accounts besides these two? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not, as I answered above: "And to answer your question, no, I don't have any other accounts.". — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll see you wonderful folks around as I start anew. Please remove all the information on my main user page except the block notice. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]