User talk:Rafaelsfingers

Welcome!

Hello, Rafaelsfingers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Blocked

Having reviewed your contributions, I conclude that this is a disruptive single-purpose account, and almost certainly a sockpuppet being used in a manner outside the permitted bounds for alternate accounts. I am sure you ahve another account, if it is not blocked then please feel free to contribute using that account. Edit-warring, though, will continue to be unwelcome. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|All false. I did nothing wrong. This is my only account. I have no sock puppets. I did nothing disruptive. The blocking admin has been disruptive making massive changes in the article against to consensus. This blocking administrator is being abusive and has no right to block me when he ls also edit warring on the article. He should not abuse his admin privileges by blocking those he is involved in a dispute with. I protest.}}

If I unblock you will you stay away from the article and just discuss and the talkpage and ani? I understand that you may have been an IP that created an account when the page was semi protected> NOTE: If you start editing warring again you'll just be blocked with no second chances --Chris 04:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Remember to do what Chris G says. -- Denelson 83 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Denelson83. clearly he was was edit warring with one hand and blocking be with the other. I understand how ip addresses work, and I think it's quite clear I do not have multiple accounts. I believe Chris should make my account whole again without reprimand.

Rafaelsfingers (talk) 05:02, 16 April 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).

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

Request reason:

initially I was unjustly accused of being giovanii33's sock puppet, but that was disproven. Since then I have been unjustly accused of being supergreen's sock puppet, all the while an admin is edit warring and blocking people. I have no idea who supergreen is. I am new to wikipedia and was simply stating my disagreement with an articles facts and lack of consensus. I .made sure not to violate the 3 rr rule. Clearly this an admin edit warring and blocking at the same time. I support wikipedias rules and guidelines, but this rogue admin has gone too far. Thank you for removing my block.

Decline reason:

Per the nature of this case and Jehochman's comments below. There might yet be an unblock, but given the reblock after the earlier unblock maybe we need to take more time here. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 18 April 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.

Sock puppetry

This account has been blocked for sock puppetry. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers for the evidence. This investigation was ongoing while the above events unfolded. This is a new block based on new circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My blockage should be reviewed under new evidence proved giovanii33 innocence. I am not a sock puppet, lumping everyone in California who shares a common pov is unjust. I am an ardent supporter of the wikipedia framework, and would not sidestep its guidelines. This is my only account. Admins edit warring while blocking should not be tolerated. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get a review, post a formal unblock request, like this: {{unblock|your reason}}. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was no new evidence, and Giovanni33 was not found innocent. Rather, sufficient doubts existed that I decided to unblock that account. Your account remains blocked because your circumstances are different from Giovanni33's, because you and Supergreenred seem to be violating WP:SOCK, as spelled out in the report. The administrators I discussed this case with agreed with my assessment that your account should remain blocked.Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt my head in here, but naturally I have some interest in this account, so I want to comment. Its true I was not proven innocent, but rather there it was not based on good enough evidence to withstand reasonable doubt. But by same token, I have reasonable doubt about this account. I am a little concerned that this account is falling victim to the same assumptions that I was caught in. Namely, circumstantial evidence based on geographic location and POV. I'm not convinced that this account and SuperRedGreen are the same, and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, despite appearances. I also do not agree with the classification of being disruptive, either. The user was given a chance by two other admins, after he was blocked, despite looking at the evidence regarding claims of possible sock, and Single Purpose disruptive account. Still, they gave the user a second chance and told him not to edit war, anymore, etc--or there would no other chances. That seemed fair. But, this user never had that chance. Before he could prove himself, his unblocked was overturned based on the assumption that he was a puppet of my account. Since that assumption is no longer being held to, I think it doesn't hurt to return the the 'second chance' offer approved by the other two admins above, who agreed to, and did, unblock. I have no interest in this account other than it being brought to my attention, some empathy over a possible rush to judgment. I also point out that the user is correct that the initial blocking admin, Guy, was edit warring in the article with editors, including this one, when he issued the blocks against them; that is not following correct protocol.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the two admins above offered a second chance in regards to edit-warring, etc. That wasn't in regards to sockpuppetry. John Smith's (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was edit warring so much as a SPA and DE, that looked like a probable sock. It was this that they both gave a second chance to. Edit warring doesnt start off with an indef block, right? Keep in mind there is no established puppetry here. Its possible that this editor used an IP and then jumped into the conflict as a newly created account. If the editor has agreed some changes, I think we can show good faith and give them the second chance they never had due to being mixed up with me and my past. You have to admit, there is a basis for reasonable doubt. If its granted to me, and others, why not to Rafaelsfingers? In anycase, I'm not going to make a big deal about it, I just felt I needed to comment here, as I felt some empathy for the user.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response to my question. I am prepared to agf but I would like a solid answer. As I said before if you go straight back to edit warring it will just be an indefinite block. Do you understand the conditions of the unblock? --Chris 10:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you already gave this account a second chance, and it immediately returned to the battlezone accusing good faith contributors of vandalism. [1] We really don't need hostile, single purpose accounts, especially when there is an indication of sock puppetry. Given Giovanni33's many contributions, I am willing to extend more benefit of the doubt in that case than here. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned not to go back to edit warring, and he did not. I don't see a problem with him using the talk page, stating his view, or voting, contributing to other articles, and proving his is not a SPA, but here to contribute generally. I believe he was told this would be acceptable and not lead to him being blocked again. The warning was not to edit war. If he does again, then he can be blocked, easily. Everyone deserves a second chance. He told he would be given one but it was then taken away.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering it. See my comments at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks bad for Giovanni33 to lobby for unblocking of their own suspected sock puppet. Raphaelsfinger, plesse post an unblock request and let an uninvolved administrator decide. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RF, I fixed the unblock template for you so it will activate and be seen. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence

Additional evidence that Giovanni33 is Rafaelsfingers/Supergreenred. Supergreenred made several reverts on William Blum. One of the few articles he edited. Both Giovanni33 and Supergreenred have made the same accusation. That it is not mentioned that Blum is a historian. Supergreenred: "Source calls him a historian, but you remove that."[2] Giovanni33: "you remove "historian' despite what the sources say."[3] Strange that both should claim this when the article now in fact state this. Evidence that they are the same person making the same mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also strange that it is Giovanni33 pleading the case so urgently for unblocking.Ultramarine (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Supergreenred: "you are cherry picking only selective facts to paint a POV picture."[4] Giovanni33: "You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV."[5]Ultramarine (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing too strange there since I was watching what was being said, and you quote me wrong. I clearly refrenced the other editors claim: "You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV. For instance, as the other editor pointed out, you remove "historian' despite what the sources say." [6]So, that should explain it. As far as cherry picking goes its a well known logical fallacy and the term is employed all the time. I saw him using that, too, and I agree that is what you were doing.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that you accused him of cherrypicking, it's that you said almost exactly the same thing including the point about POV. And you conveniently joined the discussion when the other account was blocked. John Smith's (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing strange at all. I didn't join just then. I joined a while back, and as you know I am on a revert parole. I last reverted a little over a week ago (not that I revert once a week, either). I took it to the talk page to try to settle what I thought was a silly edit war going on, but Ultramarine did not cooperate with that effort and just kept restoring to his version. Saying I used the same language, POV, is just not very interesting at all. You might as well say were were both speaking English! heheGiovanni33 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it a bit suspicious that Giovanni only reverts once Supergreen is blocked (Gio only came off his own block on 17th). But more curious are the comments made by the two accounts as they are very similar. John Smith's (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stay on topic on my talkpage? There's an unprincipled undercurrent of lumping all idealogical opponents together to paint a POV picture. Aren't there guidelines about accusing people on guidelines on a seperate individuals talkpage? I could easily revert to ultramarines tactics and question him teaming up with John Smith at almost the exact same period in this long discussion and paint the same POV of another user on my talk page, which is highly suspect of sockpuppetry in the wrong forum, but I don't.

Rafaelsfingers (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do I note that I asked for John Smith's input since he has long edited with Giovanni33.[7]Ultramarine (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was I supposed to do - ignore Ultramarine? He asked me to comment - I did. John Smith's (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia is about articles

Here are a few articles I've edited lately:

Notice, some are a bit controversial, others are not. If you were here to write an encyclopedia, you would probably want to get involved in a variety of articles, not just one single topic. Would you be willing to stay away from the "hot zone" for about a month, and thereafter avoid spending more than one third of your time in highly controversial articles? Jehochman ^Talk 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see additional evidence above.Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, yes, I would be willing to make positive contributions on other articles, but i'm not ready to be restricted from subjects I can contribute to. Contrary to previous sentiment, I am not confined to anyone elses POV - I think we can support each others contributions without being dogmatic and without censorship (and stay within wp guidelines - which I think I have). There are many trends actually within the left, and we must be careful not to lump us all together. I'm actually an early participant in the internet/ircs development, so I know the importance of real participatory, non authoratarian methodology. Thank you to all the admins support. If there's anything I can do to help Wikipedia's progress and expansion, please let me know. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a new account. If you charge into a highly controversial article and start supporting a position with a bunch of other single purpose accounts, all from the same exact geographic location and even the same ISP, you are creating the appearance of wrongdoing. Please take my advice and go prove to the community that you are a serious Wikipedia editor who is here to write, not to fight. Edit warring is utterly pointless. You can't make your opinions stick by forcing them, or by tag team reverting with other like minded editors (which we sometimes call meat puppetry). I am willing to unblock you on condition that you join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and do your very best to follow the club guidelines. What do you say? Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this account is best left blocked. If you're going to offer unblock, I think it should be conditional on something like 1/7 RR and staying away from US foreign policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think encouraging new users, such as myself to participate in activities such as editing articles, and not seeking conflict is a good idea. Differing opinions and disputes arise naturally, I think this club might might help me to do that. I believe that is one of the main reasons the internet was created, and I commend Jerochman for upholding that belief. I agree to Jerochman's terms and look forward to contributing to Wikipedia's success. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles where you can edit in peace and do good things for the Internet and society. Take advantage of this opportunity. I am unblocking. If you have any other accounts or IPs you have used, stop cold turkey and use just this one account. Jehochman ^Talk 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, Raf. I've noticed that you've been making a lot of minor edits recently on José Santos Zelaya‎. Just thought I should let you know that you shouldn't use "minor edits" for things like this edit. Some people ignore minor edits when reviewing changes in articles. If you're adding a lot of new material you shouldn't confuse people - just be careful next time. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I reviewed your work on the Zelaya article and wanted to thank you for your fine contributions. The article is vastly improved as a result. Keep up the good work!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a Request for Arbitration involving your account. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Giovanni33.Ultramarine (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving your account is open and is located at here.Ultramarine (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving your account is open and is located at here Inclusionist (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed your response here where you said you edited the page with your home account (not wireless device). [8] Is this true for your first/other posts to the board? Also, I noticed that you said you would be willing to go along with my idea of blowing away all these false suspicions that have grave ramifications by providing real word evidence as to your identity. I want to thank you for being willing to do so, as it's certainly not required. You can e-mail me to talk, as well (see the tab on left under toolbox for e-mail). Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my mobile device crashes with large web pages, so I rarely use my mobile device nowadays, but I have before. As I said before, I would be willing to give real world evidence to a neutral admin that I feel comfortable with, but not publicly without conditions. I reserve the right to retain my private information private for my own security.

Greetings. Thanks for the answer. Just so everyone is clear, these edits here:[9]Or from 2:25 to 2:45 were made from your home connection and not your a wireless device. Is that correct? If so, I it will be important evidence. A user check can confirm that and I assume you would not object. Thanks, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

welcome, Giovanni. that is correct. that statement was made on my home computer.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]