Jump to content

User talk:LordFixit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.168.175.166 (talk) at 08:38, 1 May 2014 (→Admin request for assistance: Other edit was not me.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, LordFixit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 220 of Borg 15:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jeff McCloy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Belmont and University of Newcastle

 Done

Racism in Australia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scott Morrison

 Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jeff McCloy

The article Jeff McCloy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject, who does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing for biographical content

Hi, LordFixit. I've reverted an addition you made to two articles, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: H and List of bisexual people (G–M). Please be very careful when adding content about living persons. All content needs to be verifiable, but potentially controversial content about living persons must be supported by the most reliable sources (see this policy for details). I see that a related discussion is underway at Glane23's talk page, and I want to clarify something, based on what you said there. For better or for worse, discussion of (or even allusion to) sexual orientation about a living person more or less epitomizes "potentially controversial"; the sourcing has to be beyond reproach, and reposts on social media sites are never going to cut it. You're new here, and I want you to know this up front because if you're unclear on these points you're liable to be on the receiving end of many a warning (and worse, if you make similar edits after being warned). So please tread cautiously when dealing with such content. Remember: "potentially controversial" doesn't mean anyone is being defamed or insulted; it just means that some people are likely to think so. Friendly advice—take it or leave it—from a gay editor who's far less rigid than many on BLP issues. Rivertorch (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cătălin Ivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Romanian  Done
Di Farmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Liberal National Party  Done

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pam Peterson

The article Pam Peterson has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lachlan McCaffrey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Labour Party and John Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.  Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marcel Black

The article Marcel Black has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bihco (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcel Black, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuscumbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.  Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Ronan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manx (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.  Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Sydney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liverpool Council election, 2011, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.  Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City and East (London Assembly constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Biggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.  Done It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State-level infoboxes

Just letting you know, I've started a discussion at Talk:Australian federal election, 2013 about the state-level infoboxes in the election results lists. I'm not totally against them, but I think they need a bit of work and simplification, and to fix the broken layout with the table being pushed to the left at the top. Would love to hear your thoughts and reasoning. Thanks, --Canley (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyn Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2001 United Kingdom general election results in London

Hello. Did you forget to source this article? Bearian (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)  Done[reply]

When will you back down?

There's clearly enough oppose that consensus would never be reached for your infobox. Do you enjoy flogging dead horses? Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote. It's consensus building. So far only one unaffected editor has commented - and failed to give a single reason he opposes my proposal! Again, please stop following me and harassing me. Don't you have anything else to do on the project? LordFixit (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of consensus is agreement. You're not going to get agreement. And what do you mean by "unaffected"? Is anyone who contributes regularly to Australian politics "affected"? "reasons showing that an infobox is not helpful have been presented" was given by your "unaffected" editor. You just think that an infobox cluttering up information that's already presented in the results table is for some reason not a valid argument. And yes, I contribute vast amounts to the project. How do you think I got to 42,000 edits? Go to my recent contribs to see what other articles i've edited recently. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not considered good practice on Wikipedia to raise the number of edits you've made.

Since I raised this issue I have been shocked by your arrogance and rudeness and refusal to compromise. I'm also astounded at the fact you've wasted like five hours of your (and my) life on such a pathetic, trivial matter. I have been a constructive, polite editor to all since joining. Would it really have do that much damage to insert a small version of an Infobox? LordFixit (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes always repeat information contained within the article. The current layout is more cluttered with a vast amount of text. LordFixit (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting consensus :) Timeshift (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Hattersley -- a republican?

You added the category but I see no evidence or even mention of this in the text of 0Hattersley's article, unless I am missing something, in which case I apologise. Can you provide a reflink to support this republican stance? Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've added it to the article. LordFixit (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, LordFixit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For edits concerning Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC and UK Independence Party and for working hard to keep Wikipedia NPOV Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this User:Drowninginlimbo :) LordFixit (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Klavaro

Hello LordFixit. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Klavaro, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't think this is bad enough for G11, but you might want to list it at AFD if you don't think it is notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

thnx for my message I still cant edit the jennette mccurdy or ariana grande page so boo! Maddie+mackziegler (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Alliance

Sorry, you can't use A7 on educational establishments - it says so on the can template. You can prod them or AfD them, though. If they haven't got more on this ons in a couple of hours, prod it. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a school though, it's an 'alliance' LordFixit (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Educational establishment' - includes pre-school, college and university, and theoretically it could include adult training centres (but we tend to get then for spam or copyvio...). Peridon (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I PROD'd it. LordFixit (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

Please don't create pages like this, User:John urmom. It serves no purpose. There is no reason to advertise any more that people are blocked. GB fan 13:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your experience and comment. Can I clarify why the template serves no purpose and why it was removed from User:Lokalkosmopolit? I can understand removing it from pages that don't exist, but what about a userpage that is in existence with some extreme views? LordFixit (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lokalkosmopolit has now been blocked indefinitely, with talkpage access revoked. LordFixit (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is just grave dancing, anyone who is interested already knows the editor is blocked, no reason to advertise it more. Your latest comment at User talk:Lokalkosmopolit after they were blocked so they couldn't respond is even worse. The one that brought this to my attention was your edit to User:VeteransPartyOfAmerica. I blocked them for username only and all they need to do is ask for a name change. You should leave this to the admin that blocked them to determine if marking the page is appropriate. GB fan 00:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about User:VeteransPartyOfAmerica. I won't do that again. In the case of my comment at User talk:Lokalkosmopolit, I was responding to his vicious personal attacks on me. Anyway, I'll let the matter go now. Thanks for the advice. LordFixit (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

templates

I just saw that you templated StAnselem, an editor with over 100k edits, whereas you appear to have a few more than 1000. Additionally, the template was meaningless and misplaced. I suggest you stop badgering people, and if you want to challenge them do so in a separate discussion section - but more importantly don't fight to the death for this category, it is wildly out of place and I don't think we've ever allowed any others like it, nor are likely to in the future. I'd focus your efforts on making a really good list instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2004 United States men's Olympic basketball team

According to the realiable source for the United States basketball team, the men's in the title should have an oppostrophy s. Why did you change it? Robert4565 (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?!?

User:Jpgordon, I just noticed I am blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts? I've received no notification or anything? This is a mistake I presume? Can I ask what has happened? LordFixit (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to User:Exposed101? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unblock me so I can respond to the false allegations against me that I was making threats? Several users have agreeded that I did do no such thing. There is no legitimate reason for my block. LordFixit (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your relationship to User:Exposed101? That is, after all, the basis for your block. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jpgordon: I want to sincerely apologise for what has taken place. I want to be perfectly honest about what has happened. I created the article Joe Sugg (or changed it from a redirect page) on 19 April. I'm gay and have a boyfriend. I told my boyfriend I had created the article for Joe Sugg (we're both fans) and unfortunately, unknown to me my boyfriend inserted the offensive material. He had a great deal of trouble when he came out to his family and feels that young celebrities should come out more often, not hide their sexuality to increase their opposite-sex fanbase, especially in liberal, tolerant countries like the United Kingdom, with same-sex marriage rights in place and hate speech outlawed. He feels that he went through such a tough time that it is unfair when other people hide their sexuality. However, that is no excuse for his behaviour. He has never edited Wikipedia before and was unaware of the policies we have in place surrounding WP:BLP and WP:RS. That is why I have been inadvertently blocked.

I was not even aware at first it was him. I reverted some of the edits, along with other editors. I thanked other editors who reverted the edits and made clear on the talkpage the edits were wrong. I did not want the edits to remain, which was clear, given that I reversed some and supported editors removing the others. I am horrified and incredibly disappointed with what has taken place. I love editing Wikipedia an incredible knowledge source free from corporate and editorial bias, and I am an editor in good standing, having never received any warnings or blocks. I want to apologise to the other editors who reversed the damaging edits by User:Exposed101 such as User:Drowninginlimbo and User:Tutelary. I deeply regret what has taken place, as does my boyfriend. I can make a guarantee that if unblocked, nothing like this will ever happen again. (I'll make sure of it! lol) Please see the constructive contributions I have made to the project: Pages created

In addition, I have manually welcomed dozens of editors who have created accounts and IP editors. I have nominated articles for speedy deletion, and reported spam accounts (for example here and here )

It is also important to note that the account was not used to advance my viewpoints in any of the consensus-seeking discussions that I have taking place such as at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12#Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC or here or here.

Please consider unblocking me. I have learnt a valuable lesson from all this, and am very sorry for what has taken place. LordFixit (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the patrolling admin, I'd opt for you to be unblocked, but as for your boyfriend, I can't in good conscious request his unblock lest he read and understand Wikipedia policy, and for his future edits to be watched and inspected for any overt breaches of Wikipedia policy, probably by a mentor of sorts. I also share no ill will with him, either. Tutelary (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) LordFixit (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should make an unblock request, unless a passing admin overlooks your case I do not see it being undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't received a block notice here though or a sockpuppet investigation? Can I still request unblock? LordFixit (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cant place a block template as I am not an admin however I can link you here: Wikipedia:Appealing a block - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can appeal a block using the {{unblock}} template. I'd wait for the blocking admin to check in here. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info User:The Bushranger and User:Knowledgekid87. I'll wait for User:Jpgordon to give his opinion as well. LordFixit (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion. Your accounts are technically indistinguishable, and your story could explain that (checkuser would find my account indistinguishable from my wife's.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have any opinion on me being unblocked? I can make assurances this will never happen again (my boyfriend has promised to never edit Wikipedia again!) LordFixit (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have no opinion. Make an unblock request, as described above, and some other admin will come along and decide whether to unblock you. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:11, 22 April 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to sincerely apologise for what has taken place. I want to be perfectly honest about what has happened. I created the article Joe Sugg (or changed it from a redirect page) on 19 April. I'm gay and have a boyfriend. I told my boyfriend I had created the article for Joe Sugg (we're both fans) and unfortunately, unknown to me my boyfriend inserted the offensive material. He had a great deal of trouble when he came out to his family and feels that young celebrities should come out more often, not hide their sexuality to increase their opposite-sex fanbase, especially in liberal, tolerant countries like the United Kingdom, with same-sex marriage rights in place and hate speech outlawed. He feels that he went through such a tough time that it is unfair when other people hide their sexuality. However, that is no excuse for his behaviour. He has never edited Wikipedia before and was unaware of the policies we have in place surrounding WP:BLP and WP:RS. That is why I have been inadvertently blocked. I was not even aware at first it was him. I reverted some of the edits, along with other editors. I thanked other editors who reverted the edits and made clear on the talkpage the edits were wrong. I did not want the edits to remain, which was clear, given that I reversed some and supported editors removing the others. I am horrified and incredibly disappointed with what has taken place. I love editing Wikipedia an incredible knowledge source free from corporate and editorial bias, and I am an editor in good standing, having never received any warnings or blocks. I want to apologise to the other editors who reversed the damaging edits by User:Exposed101 such as User:Drowninginlimbo and User:Tutelary. I deeply regret what has taken place, as does my boyfriend. I can make a guarantee that if unblocked, nothing like this will ever happen again. (I'll make sure of it! lol) Please see the constructive contributions I have made to the project: Pages created *Kārlis Šadurskis (Latvian MEP) *Brian Key (British Councillor and former Labour MEP) *Heinz K. Becker (Austrian MEP) *William Tooth (Former Australian state MP) *Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East *London Labour Party *Newham mayoral election, 2010 *1997 United Kingdom general election results in Scotland *2001 United Kingdom general election results in London *2005 United Kingdom general election results in London *2010 United Kingdom general election result in Birmingham *2010 United Kingdom general election result in Merseyside *2010 United Kingdom general election results in London *Fonda Hawthorne (Democratic member of the Arkansas House) *Richard Ronan (Isle of Man politician) *Ioan Enciu (Romanian MEP) *Vasilica Dăncilă (Romanian MEP) *Daniel Greig (Winter olympics Athlete) *Marcel Black (Democratic member of the Alabama House) *Pam Peterson (Republican Oklahoma majority House leader) *Australia–Indonesia spying scandal *Cătălin Ivan (Romanian MEP) *Greg Leding (Democratic member of Arkansas House) *Jeff McCloy (Australian politician) *Lisle Snell (Norfolk Island politician) *Racism in Guam In addition, I have manually welcomed dozens of editors who have created accounts and IP editors. I have nominated articles for speedy deletion, and reported spam accounts (for example here and here ) It is also important to note that the account was not used to advance my viewpoints in any of the consensus-seeking discussions that I have taking place such as at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 12#Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC or here or here. The blocking admin has stated he has no opinion on me being unblocked (See discussion above) Again, I acknowledge that what took place was completely wrong and unacceptable. I sincerely apologise for it. Please consider allowing me to continue to edit on this great community project LordFixit (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When I posted to this page before, I was strongly of the opinion that the evidence favoured sockpppetry, but there was a small element of doubt, so I decided to give you maximum benefit of that doubt, and leave your unblock request for a second opinion. Since then, my attention has been drawn to features of the relationship between the editing of this account and the account Exposed101 which I had not noticed. That information removed all doubt: either both accounts were operated by one person, or they were operated by two people acting together, in full collaboration. There is no longer any room for the possibility that you had no knowledge of who was editing with the other account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2014 (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 have just spent about 25 minutes investigating this case. My first impression was that your explanation was possible, but that the evidence was also consistent with the possibility of a good hand/bad hand pair of sockpuppet accounts, and your "boyfriend" could be a variation on the well-known little brother theme. The view I was strongly inclined towards was that, with both possibilities open, in the absence of any evidence to distinguish between them, I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock. Unfortunately, however, the more I looked into it, the more reasons I found to be doubtful about that view. I saw reasons to think that Exposed101 had experience of editing Wikipedia, and was not as inexperienced as he claimed. I saw discrepancies between what you claimed about your own editing and what I saw for myself. I also saw an unblock request which looked, frankly, much more like the sort of thing I have seen hundreds of times from editors who are guilty as charged, than the sort of thing I have seen hundreds of times from editors who are mistakenly accused of sockpuppetry. (There are several aspects of the request that give that impression, perhaps the most glaring being the fact that "Look at this long list of things I have done that I think are good, but are completely unrelated to the reason for the block! Whatever you think of my actions in this case, I have made good contributions in other ways, so you should ignore my actions in this case and unblock me!" is not, in my experience, the kind of defence that is ever mounted by the innocent.) My inclination has therefore shifted from accepting the request to declining it. However, I am still just about willing to consider it, if you can clarify some points. Perhaps you can explain the following fact. You say "I did not want the edits to remain, which was clear, given that I reversed some...". However, I have checked every page ever edited by the Exposed101 account, including pages now deleted, and I cannot see even one single place where you reverted any of that account's edits. Also "I acknowledge that what took place was completely wrong and unacceptable. I sincerely apologise for it" seems like an odd pair of statements to make if you had no part in what you are referring to. Can you explain that? Are you sure you don't mean something closer to "I admit that I did it and it was wrong", but don't quite have the courage to say so? If so, you like to reconsider what you say. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there user:JamesBWatson. I could have said I did it. It would be a more believable story. But I've chosen to be honest and give the less convenient but more truthful version events. I'm not sure what User:Exposed101 did to make you believe he had experience. For example, he failed to sign his comments on several occasions. I can't access most of the edit history for Joe Sugg and Talk:Joe Sugg, so I can't really comment on other aspects. He knows the basics of Wikipedia, because we have talked every known and then about what I do on Wikipedia and about things like consensus.
I cited the constructive things I've done for the project to prove I shouldn't just be collateral damage in blocking User:Exposed101. I was pointing out the difference between the contributions of my account and User:Exposed101. I apologised on behalf of my boyfriend, and I apologised that I am having to seek an unblock due to those actions, not because I was making an admission of guilt

Thanks for your time and help LordFixit (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the balance of evidence seems to me to indicate that a good hand/bad hand sockpuppet pair is more likely than the explanation you have given. However, I am leaving the unblock request open, so that if any other administrator sees it differently, or is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, you can be unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't change my story. I have given the honest facts about what took place. I'm not sure what makes you come to that conclusion, given that you said “My first impression was that your explanation was possible, but that the evidence was also consistent with the possibility of a good hand/bad hand pair of sockpuppet accounts, and your "boyfriend" could be a variation on the well-known little brother theme. The view I was strongly inclined towards was that, with both possibilities open, in the absence of any evidence to distinguish between them, I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock” and “However, I am still just about willing to consider it, if you can clarify some points” I try to do the right thing by apologising for the trouble caused, and but apparently that is an 'admission of guilt' LordFixit (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended. It's been a very difficult time since all this took place, and your apparent view that I've made up the story hurts. LordFixit (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a way out, which may be unorthodox, would be to have both lord fixit and his boyfriend on a skype chat with an admin. By seeing the two faces the admin could chat with both and easily, I think ascertain the truth, unless lordfixit is able to hire a very good actor in short term. Obviously this would have to be organized off-wiki and lordfixit would have to reveal personal details like skype address (as well as the admin) but only to a single admin, in whom the rest of the community would place their trust. Just a thought - if lordfixit doesn't want to do this there is obviously no obligation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Obiwankenobi. I'm disheartened and disappointed that I haven't been unblocked. I've been honest about what happened, but apparently my apologies and listing my constructive edits count against me. It's sad that two admins User:JamesBWatson and User:Jpgordon have now said they don't have any opinion on the issue. My case is just going from admin to admin with no positive results. This has been an utter nightmare. I don't actually have Skype yet. I'll think about your suggestion if it is possible. However, it seems if it comes to having to do your suggestion, other editors and admins have no trust in me, a difficult situation in the long-term. Other editors are now nominating articles I created for deletion, knowing I cannot have a say as this drags on. LordFixit (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the exact rules, but I think if you post something here for another discussion it can be copied there on your behalf. But not sure when that can or can't be done. I don't think it's revenge - rather, when someone boasts "Look at this great article I created", other editors will take a look and if they think it isn't up to snuff try to ice it - it's not revenge, it's just you focused their gaze on that article. Articles that are highlighted, in any high-profile dispute, ALWAYS receive more scrutiny. It just comes with the territory. Ultimately it's not the nom's opinion which counts, but that of the people !voting at the AFD. Anyway, my suggestion was unorthodox, but if set up correctly and in a way that ensures privacy for all involved, it could be a way out. In cases of mistaken identity, often the courts will ask you to "produce" the so-called doppleganger/LittleBrother - and in a way that is what is being requested here. If your boyfriend exists and did make those edits from the same IP, produce him - somehow - and have him apologize for what he did and confirm somehow that he's not the same person. A webcam makes this trivially easy to establish in a way that typing text doesn't...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking of my opinion

User:Knowledgekid87, can you clarify why you have struck my statement at WP:Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic? I have responded to the block above and I am contesting it strongly. I am not blocked in relation to improper attempts to sway opinion, or to stack an argument. In addition, my statement at WP:Articles for deletion/Kharkiv People's Republic was made before the creation of User:Exposed101, so there is no legitimate reason to strike my comment. Please undo the striking. LordFixit (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The strikeout was undone, it was my understanding that sock accounts were struckout in AfD discussions. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They usually are. However, the circumstance must be met; The person was editing in evasion of their block/sockpuppet. Say, Exposed101 was the older account, and was blocked. then LordFixIt (the newer account) edited the page with the opinion. Then yes, the strikeout would be justified. Instead, it was the reverse. So it wasn't justified. Tutelary (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then would I be warranted to remove the strike out made against LordFixit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Request_for_comment Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you need a policy to cite, see WP:BLOCKEVASION. Note the wording, Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, They must be in violation of their block to be reverted. (I used that as the guideline to remove the strikethrough, as it doesn't seem to have any policy for/against.) Tutelary (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm going to do this now I think Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just admitted though that there is no policy against striking out votes of sock accounts in AfD/Move/RfC discussions. If the user is blocked indef for something they have done then their opinions are usually discredited. See: WP:AFDSOCK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sock though. I didn't use alternative accounts to attempt to change consensus. LordFixit (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will just drop it then, I was only curious on where this stood from the policy standpoint, it is only one AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be strongly contesting the block anyway. Hopefully I will be unblocked soon. LordFixit (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is specifically prohibited. See WP:TPOC. Tutelary (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought it would be, it seems strange to allow the editing of banned users posts by non-admins, especially during active debates. Some people will do anything to discredit those they don't agree with, despite things like this doing nothing to further their argument Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Racism in Guam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racism in Guam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in Guam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StAnselm (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT? User:StAnselm, you've only seen this page today presumably because I pointed to the fact I had created it. Have you nominated it for deletion purely because of our disagreement here ? Otherwise how did you come across it and nominate it for deletion? Are you planning on nominating any other articles in Category:Racism by country? LordFixit (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that I came across the article because you listed it here. As for other nominations, there are only 30 pages in the category - clearly, there is no feeling that every country needs a racism article. Racism in Finland certainly looks very weak, but at least there is an opinion poll result to go on. StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello Lordfixit. You recently posted on my talk page about my article that was deleted. I was wondering if you could give me some information on what is appropriate to use as a source on Wikipedia Remster1001 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, more than happy to help! Can you clarify what article it was that was deleted? I've nominated several for deletion. Thanks LordFixit (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mark Fournier. I am writing about a Filmmaker, philanthropist and motivational speaker and I guess I am in a bit over my head because I'm not sure of the best way to get and use sources for the article. Remster1001 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesBWatson

User:JamesBWatson you said “My first impression was that your explanation was possible, but that the evidence was also consistent with the possibility of a good hand/bad hand pair of sockpuppet accounts, and your "boyfriend" could be a variation on the well-known little brother theme. The view I was strongly inclined towards was that, with both possibilities open, in the absence of any evidence to distinguish between them, I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock” and “However, I am still just about willing to consider it, if you can clarify some points” What are the 'features of the relationship between the editing of this account and the account Exposed101 which I had not noticed'. What? I have given an honest, true and full version of the events. You have not WP:AGF purely because I apologised and expressed regret, something I believe was right. I was apologising on behalf of my boyfriend, and because the project has been damaged and disrupted. I was more than happy to answer any questions or clarify any matters. I am very dissappointed that you have chosen not to believe the honest truth, especially given your cruel attempt to lead me on. Let me state clearly again: I did not operate the User:Exposed101 account. I did not collaborate with the account. You have to evidence to prove otherwise. Very shocked that despite the blocking admin not objecting to me being unblocked, and several users supporting it you have chosen to ignore the facts. I will not stop fighting out of both principle and a desire to continue editing, right up to the Arbitration Committee for what is right and fair. LordFixit (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof I did not operate the User:Exposed101 account. At the time User:Exposed101 was reverting edits at Joe Sugg 00:10 and 00:14, I had manually welcomed six new accounts. In addition, you can see my comments at Talk:Joe_Sugg in which I explained why the information posted did not meet several policies. LordFixit (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the reason I linked to the positive work I have done on the project was to explain why I should not be WP:COLLATERAL LordFixit (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:JamesBWatson, you've made a decision to change your mind on two separate occasions. Could you please reply now so I know what my next step is in this farce? That would be most appreciated. LordFixit (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't think that I changed my mind on two separate occasions, nor even on one occasion. My first impression was that both options were possible; on looking further I saw that the evidence strongly favoured one of those two: that was not changing my mind, but forming an opinion where I had previously had none. Wikipedia is not a court of criminal law, and we don't require proof "beyond all reasonable doubt": we require something closer to the standard taken in civil courts in most English speaking countries, namely proof "on the balance of probability". I could easily have declined your unblock request at this stage, and I have known many unblock requests to be declined on the basis of far weaker evidence. However, I personally dislike keeping editors blocked while there is even a weak element of doubt, and I decided to give you the benefit of that doubt to the extent of inviting you to give more explanation. The response you gave did nothing to reduce my impression that there was sockpuppetry. I could very easily have declined your unblock request at that point, but decided to give you the benefit of waiting for a second opinion. That was not changing my mind, it was making a decision to allow you as much benefit of the doubt as possible. I was then given further evidence, which removed the element of doubt, so I declined the unblock request. That was not changing my mind: I still thought, and still think now, that the evidence had all along been strongly in favour of sockpuppetry, and evidence that I had not previously been aware of merely served to consolidate that opinion, not change it.
  2. Your message beginning "Further proof I did not operate..." must refer to the period from 00:10 to 00:14 on the 20th of April. During the period from 00:02 to 00:10, the account Exposed101 made 9 edits (including one that has since been deleted), at an average rate of about one every minute. From 00:14 to 00:17 Exposed101 made exactly one post each minute. In the four minutes from 00:10 to 00:14, Exposed101 made no edits. In the middle of that four minute gap, the account LordFixit posted six copies of the same templated message to six talk pages. Pasting six copies of one template can easily be done in a few seconds, and indeed all six of the posts are logged as taking place at 00:12, confirming that it took less than a minute. Four minutes are easily enough to log out of one account and into another, open six talk pages, post six copies of {{subst:Welcome cookie}}~~~~ to those pages, and log back into the first account, so I do not think that what you have given is "proof [you] did not operate the User:Exposed101 account". In fact, since you have chosen to bring up the timing of editing by the two accounts in that period, if anything, the fact that the only edits by LordFixit in that period occur during a four minute gap in the editing of an account that was otherwise editing consistently at at a rate of one edit per minute suggests the opposite. Looking further, I see that the LordFixit's six rapid edits are followed by a 7 minute gap in LordFixit's editing, during which the editing at a rate of once per minute by Exposed101 that I have already mentioned takes place, then there is a gap of five minutes in Exposed101's editing, during which LordFixit makes a burst of three rapid edits from 00:19 to 00:20, then we get a five minute gap in LordFixit's edits, during which there are two edits from Exposed101 one minute apart, then a 12 minute gap in Exposed101's editing, during which LordFixit makes two edits both logged at the same time, and therefore made within a minute, then once again LordFixit stops editing and Exposed101 starts editing. You, not I, brought up this question of the timing of the editing, but examination of the timing is pretty strong evidence against you. Which is more likely: (1) two people who know one another very well, editing independently, not even knowing that one another is editing, happen to keep editing in short bursts, each one stopping just as the other is about to start, or (2) one person is switching between two accounts? There is also the fact that the two are known to be editing from the same place: the two accounts have been determined by a CheckUser to be confirmed as the same. I do not know exactly what the CheckUser evidence is, but from my experience of previous CheckUser reports, if it were merely a question of being from the same IP address, possibly two different computers on one network, the CheckUser would have said something such as "likely" rather than "confirmed", so I am very strongly inclined to think that the CheckUser evidence proves that the two accounts were using the same computer. If so, then we are asked to believe that two people keep editing for a few minutes, logging off, leaving the room (because you did not know your boyfriend was editing), coming back, logging in again for a few minutes, logging off again, and so on, and each time that one leaves the computer, within a couple of minutes the other one comes in and logs in and starts editing, only to log out and leave just before his boyfriend comes back to edit again - all without your knowing that this was happening.
  3. Your posts at Talk:Joe Sugg, disagreeing with Exposed101, might seem like evidence of being a different person to anyone not used to the way sockpuppeteers work. However, anyone with experience of sockpuppet cases will know that this is in fact standard behaviour for anyone operating a good-hand/bad-hand pair of accounts: the two accounts almost always express disagreement on talk pages to try to strengthen the impression that they are different people. Of course, that does not prove that you did so, but it does mean that it is of no value as evidence that you were not operating a good-hand/bad-hand pair of accounts.
  4. "...despite the blocking admin not objecting to me being unblocked" is looking at it from one side: equally valid would be "...despite the blocking admin not objecting to me remaining blocked": he said that he had no opinion either way, and would leave it to another administrator to decide.
  5. I still believe that the decision I made was correct. However, even if I was wrong, it was a good faith judgement as to what seemed on the basis of the available evidence to be the most likely situation. That is what an administrator assessing an unblock request has to do: make a judgement on the basis of the available evidence as to what is most likely. I do not think you will have a case if you try to claim that I have acted out of process or made an unreasonable assessment, even if you can persuade others that the conclusion I reached was wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesBWatson, I appreciate your response. However, I strongly contest virtually every point you have made. 1. Yes, you did change your mind on two occasions. You originally stated “My first impression was that your explanation was possible, but that the evidence was also consistent with the possibility of a good hand/bad hand pair of sockpuppet accounts, and your "boyfriend" could be a variation on the well-known little brother theme. The view I was strongly inclined towards was that, with both possibilities open, in the absence of any evidence to distinguish between them, I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and unblock” and “However, I am still just about willing to consider it, if you can clarify some points” and also said “However, I am leaving the unblock request open, so that if any other administrator sees it differently, or is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, you can be unblocked”. Yet you have done none of those things, instead rejecting my request because the story seems hard to believe and because I apologised and listed positive contributions. You have failed to explain what the evidence is that you 'have been given' and by whom.

2. I believe that the public IP address of two computers using the same router is the same. The timing in my view, is evidence which favours me, which is precisely why I brought it up. It does take time to manually find new editors, open a new window, welcome them, go back and welcome someone else. Your claim that in that space of time I could have done all that, typed in my username, typed in my password, logged out, typed in another username and another password is absurd, with all due respect. In addition, User:Exposed101 repeatedly failed to sign talk pages and used informal language and lack of capitalisation, something I have never done. I made an edit at 23:53, after noticing User:Exposed101's edits. User:Exposed101, made an edit at 23:52. Do you seriously expect people to believe that in that one minute, I logged out of my account, logged back in by typing Exposed101 with a capital, numbers and a password, made an edit, logged straight back out, typed in LordFixit and a password and made another edit? The other timings which you cite are purely times in which I was reviewing my Watchlist, responding to messages, looking at sources, reading other pages and indeed other websites.

3. I created Joe Sugg page from a redirect, sources with reliable and credible source. Why would I seek to vandalise and destroy the article I have just created? And if I genuinely believe the information about Joe Sugg's sexuality based on a revenge porn site belonged in the article, would it not have made more sense for me to use my account which was in good standing to insert the information, rather than create a fake account which would be blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet and a vandalism only account? Your comments that my opposition to the posts by User:Exposed101 was to attempt to create the impression of different accounts is absolute nonsense. If I had agreeded with User:Exposed101, I would have actually made the matter be further considered, rather than appear as just vandalism. Why would I have immediately responded opposing the edits by User:Exposed101? It just does not make sense.

4. I believe the fact that the blocking admin did not oppose me being ublocked is more significant than if he had actively opposed an unblock, as according to WP:BLOCK 'blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block'

5. How is it a good faith judgement when you first led me on with your comments illustrated at point 1 above, and you have failed to assume good faith on my part and ignored multiple policies relating to blocks? See WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE which states 'Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms'. Given that my boyfriend has made a committment not to edit Wikipedia again using any account nor appeal the block at User:Exposed101 and that I have stated I can make a committment to, with the best of my ability, prevent any such thing happening again, the block seems to fail this section. Me being blocked also seems to fail WP:NOPUNISH, which states 'Blocks should not be used...as punishment against users or where there is no current conduct issue of concern. It is further stated at WP:BLOCK that 'The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider: the severity of the behavior; whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.' My boyfriend has made a committment not to edit using any account in future, as he has no real interest in Wikipedia, so how can an indefinite block for me be needed? Further to that, 'whether the user has engaged in that behavior before' should be considered. Neither I or my boyfriend have engaged in any such behaviour before. Surely after considering those points, the block seems incredibly unfair and arbitrary? LordFixit (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be lodging another unblock request, but I am waiting for you reply User:JamesBWatson. LordFixit (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you have written there is a matter of raising again points that have already been answered, or fallacious argument, or both. I have already taken the trouble to give you a long explanation of the essential points, and there is no point in spending my time doing the same again. However, I shall answer just two points.
Naturally I have "failed to explain what the evidence is that you 'have been given' and by whom". It doesn't pay to tell sockpuppeteers how they give themselves away, so as to help them avoid the same mistakes again. However, it no longer matters, as you pointed to the timing evidence, which, together with the other evidence already seen, is enough to dispel all reasonable doubts.
You say "It does take time to manually find new editors, open a new window, welcome them, go back and welcome someone else", but you seem to overlook the fact that you actually posted the same message to six editors within a minute. You can't use the fact that doing something takes a long time as evidence, if you are known to have done it in less than a minute. (I neither know nor care how you did it in less than a minute. Maybe you are very quick at going through the steps you have described, or maybe you found six new editors in advance, opened blank talk pages for them, pasted the message, and just had to click "save", or maybe there was some other method, but it absolutely doesn't matter: you did post the same message six times within a minute, so claiming that it takes a lot of time is nonsense.) Finding six new users can be done in seconds, by just looking at this. As for how long it takes to log in and out of two accounts, you may find it interesting to look at the editing history of the page User:JamesBWatson/Test, which is here. As you will see, I was able to post a message, log out, log into another account, post the message again, log out, log back into the first account, and post the message again, all within a minute. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Can anyone with experience read my explanation above concerning what took place under User_talk:LordFixit#Blocked.3F.21.3F. What is the policy concerning these situations. What can be done to regain editing privileges lost due to an issue that was not my fault? LordFixit (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Appealing a block explains what steps you can take. For the blocking policy itself see WP:BLOCK. Huon (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request for assistance

Can anyone with experience read my explanation above concerning what took place under User_talk:LordFixit#Blocked.3F.21.3F. What is the policy concerning these exceptional situations. LordFixit (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LordFixit: You have been blocked by a check user, who are usually sysop who have the ability to check whether accounts have possibly been accessed by the same person. The technical method for doing this is a check of the accounts information (namely the IP) and these findings are interpreted by the CU as to whether it seems likely the accounts were being accessed by the same person or in the very least the same computer. Editing information is further looked at such as diffs to see if there is a pattern of closely related actions (such as editing the same articles) etc. Under the block policy, enough of the criteria was met that a block was incurred. You subsequently submitted an unblock request in which it was reviewed and rejected by one sysop. The reason behind it was that against the technical information and the editing history, your statement refuted the initial block rationale. What essentially this means is that on one hand, as a reviewer, we have some technical information, the fact that you both were editing the same articles, and on the other hand we have your word. The reviewing admin found that some of your claims were not supported (such as reverting the actions of the other account) and that the basis for your unblock request was mostly based on the fact that you've done other good work which is unrelated to this situation. That trims down your unblock request to the fundamental claim that your boyfriend did it. In comparison with the other evidence, it's whether the community would take your word for it or not. If you're looking for a policy that openly states that we are required to take your word for it against the evidence we have on hand, there isn't one. We certainly need to consider the fact that you are innocent and that you are in a very unfortunate situation. As such, you may want to submit another unblock request, and do your best to provide as much detail and further evidence that supports your claim. While unorthodox, the Skype call with an admission of the actions from your boyfriend by him directly, might be one option. Mkdwtalk 18:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the Skype call would achieve. So someone comes on and says "I am LordFixit", and someone else comes on and says "I am LordFixit's boyfriend". What does that prove? 80.168.175.166 (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your first edit on Wikipedia since February 2011. Who are you really? LordFixit (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. I have made loads of edits. My IP address is dynamic, so it changes every time I start up my router, and sometimes even when I don't. In fact, I didn't make the edit in February 2011. That was someone else using this IP address. 80.168.175.166 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LordFixit&oldid=606597061"