User talk:JayJasper

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

revert of the removal of a mistake

Just a courteous note: I noticed another editor actually reverted an revert you made of what appears to be an editorializing attempt, in addition to introducing two formatting mistakes. That revert appears to have convinced you that the original edit was correct; unfortunately it isn't. While the statement is true, note the section in which this sentence appears. This is not only an unsourced WP:OR about whether a third-party candidate spoiled the election by affecting the electoral votes outcome in 2000 (still a highly contentious issue), but is in fact patently illogical as it cites a simple fact about the popular vote total that has nothing to do with the electoral votes outcome. I've helped you remove the original edit again. (also note that based on editing interests, I'm pretty sure the other user is in fact the same person as the IP address who made the original edit.) 73.114.34.143 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, and making the revert. I had reverted the OR statement a second time but missed that it had been added back yet again. The notification is appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JayJasper. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry by JayJasper. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 26 September 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Although I am not particularly savvy when it comes to CheckUser, I am aware that is considered highly reliable by those able to use it knowledgably, and that being identified by the system as a sock puppeteer puts one in the position of presumed guilt. Acknowledging the difficulty in having to prove a negative, I would like to put forward a few points for consideration when weighing the allegations against me. *Looking through the edit histories of my alleged socks, I calculated well more than 7,000 edits overall. It would take an impressive effort to accumulate that number in addition to the thousands of edits I typically compile on an annual basis. Simply put, it would require way more time than I actually have in a day, given that I work daily in addition to online activities like Wikipedia. *If there is a way to determine if more than one editor has edited simultaneously in the same time frame, it would not be surprising to discover that I have edited alongside some of my alleged socks in a time frame that in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to be operating multiple accounts at the same time. *While nearly all the alleged socks have edited topics similar to those that I have edited, particularly subjects related to US politics, each one has also edited topics decidedly different than the topics I typically work on. For example, at least one seems to have a fascination with conspiracy theories & related subjects, while another seems to drawn to computer technology and the like. These are not subjects that hold a great deal of interest to me and would not be topics I would put time and effort into editing. *Each alleged sock seemingly has a different writing/conversational style in talk page discussions and/or edit summaries. *It should be noted that a good portion of my editing, particularly during the past 2-3 years, has been done on public access computers. I know for a fact I am not the only person who edits Wikipedia in the venues I frequent, which have a shared IP address. Yes, I know it is unlikely that 14 or more people (the number of my alleged socks) will be editing in the same venue, particularly those with at least partially common interests in topics for editing. Nevertheless, Shared IP addresses should always be given due and diligent consideration in sockpuppet allegations. I trust that all of the above points will be given serious consideration by the ruling administrator and anyone else to whom it may concern. If, after careful consideration, you decide that I am worthy of being given at least the benefit of doubt in my contention of not being the sockmaster I am alleged to be, you will have my highest gratitude. Should you choose to unblock me and allow me to continue in my enthusiastic efforts to improve Wikipedia, your decision will be rewarded with more focused and diligent efforts than ever before on my part. Because the privilege will most assuredly not be taken for granted. Whatever you decide, I ask that you please take into account the decade of work I have put into Wikipedia: creating and cleaning up articles, constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects, adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. Thank you for your careful consideration.--JayJasper (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per my ANI remarks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:23, 28 September 2016 (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.

• {{checkuser needed}} to review the unblock request. The results of the CU are in my userspace on the CUwiki: might be useful to have a look at (more visual and shows the links). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement

@Callanec: Would you please link this from, or copy-and-paste to, the appropriate place? Thanks--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, here I am with my hands up acknowledging - with great remorse and regret - that the sockpupetting allegations against me are indeed true. I first want to offer my deepest apologies to the entire community for these grievous actions, which are entirely indefensible and contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community of which I have been privileged to have been a part of for nearly a full decade. I apologize also for my desperately lame attempts to initially deny these allegations in the face of crystal-clear evidence. There are no excuses or any justification whatsoever for these actions, for which I take full and complete responsibility for. I perfectly understand if any of the editors who I have frequently interacted with over are angry and/or deeply disappointed with my actions. I would certainly have similar feelings if I were in their position. If I can be given the opportunity to earn back the community's trust and goodwill, you can take it to the bank that I will work diligently and enthusiastically to do so.

Although my behavior-in-question could never be explained away, and that there are zero - maybe even negative - legitmate reasons that could be given for it, I would nevertheless like to give a bit of insight as to how it came about. Around 7 years ago, I for some reason felt a need to "experiment" by editing in other personas. I found that it seemed to stimulate creativity and and a sense of "freedom" to edit from the vantagepoint of "someone else". Crazy, huh? Despite having been a Wikipedian long enough at that point to know better, I naively thought it would be just a short-term thing that wouldn't do any harm. Well, it just seemed to get easier and easier to do, and I guess it became somewhat (for lack of a better word) addictive. I started rationalizing to myself that editing through the multiple accounts was actually beneficial to Wikipedia because doing so actually enhanced my editing skills. I now know what a load of malarky that was, and that there are no justifications for stealth sockpuppeting and that single-editor focused editing is truly what works best. I can't tell you how badly I wish I had the good sense back then to "experiment" in a manner compliant with WP:SOCK#LEGIT, with full transparency. Alas, I did not, and...here I am. The great irony to all of this is that, just a few weeks before being "caught", the reality of just how absurdly out-control the sock accounts had become was beginning - in a big way - to set in. I then made myself a resolution that within a period of six months I would have all the socks "phased out" once and for all (I had reasoned that if I dropped them all "cold turkey" it might become obvious and look suspicious that these multiple editors all stopped at about the same time. Then, just two or three weeks later - boom! Like I said, irony. 

I tell you this not to garner any sympathy or persuade you to in any way let me "off the hook". I just want give some perspective, and let you know that while that while my judgement in this whole matter was obviously piss-poor, my intentions and motivations were never in any way of ill will, nor intended to disrespect or spite the WP community. I know that does not make it right, or even more tolerable. I fully acknowledge the harm my thoughtless actions have done, and I regret it deeply. Nevertheless, I want everyone to know that I truly do respect the community despite having engaged in actions that do not comport with that sentiment.

Oh, about those handful of good sock/bad sock edits, including the one that led to the "reveal": They came about as a result of a prankish work associate who thought it would be a real hoot to give me some vandalism to chase after while I was editing from an office computer, and he was logged in on another (which has a different IP address from the one I was using, but I had made edits from both, so...). Now, I know this may sound like "a likely story" and that I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, but that is in no way the case. Although I didn't initiate these edits, I knew what was taking place and could have - and should have - made a staunch effort to prevent it from happening, but failed to do so. I therefore have complicity in, and bear full responsibility for, them. I just want it to be known that this sort of thing is not something I would initiate or do "for jollies" at Wikipedia's expense. Nor is it something I would ever allow to happen again, should I have the good fortune of being granted a second chance of being an active member of the Wikipedia community again.

I would also like to note that I never personally edited under the usernames "Miss Cherry Redd" or "BrightonC". They are (well, were) the legitimate accounts of two people I know personally who started edited WP with my encouragement. Both edited from computers that were shared with me at home or work. Among the many regrets I have over this whole episode is they have lost their accounts as a result of my utter stupidity. If and when I am granted a second chance by the community, I will remember to utilize Template:User shared IP address on any and all applicable accounts.

Having acknowledged my transgressions, I steadfastly vow to learn from, and never repeat, them. Having done so, I humbly and respectfully ask the community to extend to me the WP standard offer, or some variation of it. Knowing that some of you understandably have misgivings about doing so, let it be known that I am open to having editing privileges under probationary measures of some kind. Such measures would be prudent and more than fair. I am also open to any suggestions and feedback you may have concerning actions I might take to better my chances of having editing privileges restored.

Given the opportunity to make a WP:Clean start, I could begin anew with a new account that is unstained by the legacy of sockpuppetry that brought about this whole unfortunate episode, but that continues the positive legacy of the JayJasper account. Please note that this positive legacy encompasses nearly a decade of constructive work that has benefitted the project: creating, improving, and cleaning up articles; constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects; adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. While I know that my many positive contributions do not erase or excuse the harm done by my despicably poor choices in editing methods, I would like to believe that a decade of positive, productive contributions that have benefitted the readers of Wikipedia (and aren't they who WP exists for, and to whom the project has it first and foremost responsibility?) must count for something, and carry heavy weight at that.

Whatever your decision, I thank you for your careful considerationm--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Update on request

@Callanecc: Would you please it be known at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Standard offer or Clean start|the ANI discussion]] that I am no longer requesting WP:CLEANSTART, but WP:SO only. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk)

Please comment on Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)