User talk:DouggCousins

Hi All

I'm happy to respond for comments here, but typically it's best to post directly on the talk page of the article you wish to discuss. Cheers and happy editing. DouggCousins (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DouggCousins, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DouggCousins! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Pete Buttigieg

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-south-bend-police.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Other editors had already removed your addition for reasons other than copyright by the time I came across the bot report about the potential copyright issue. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Your addition to Pete Buttigieg has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you request copyright permission from the copyright holder? I feel strongly with Vox Media and The New York Times that they'd want their reporting on crime rates in South Bend as a result of Pete Buttigieg's policies linked to by Wikipedia in such a way that it wouldn't be a violation of WP:Synthesis. DouggCousins (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-adding the copyright content. You are violating Wikipedia's copyright policy. This is your final warning. Further violations result in you being blocked from editing. It is highly unlikely that The New York Times or Vox would release their material to Wikipedia under license. You could request permission, but I doubt they would even reply. Regardless of the copyright issue, the content has been repeatedly removed by multiple editors, as you have failed to gain consensus on the talk page to include it. It's long past time to stop. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crime rates of all mayors should be a part of their wikipedia page. According to your talk page, you have "no opinion" on Pete Buttigieg. As stated above, I very carefully wished to avoid WP:Synthesis issues, so I paraphrased. I did NOT copy the information. DouggCousins (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Pete Buttigieg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never vandalized wikipedia in my life. I am learning to avoid close paraphrasing with my objectively constructive editing. DouggCousins (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pete Buttigieg; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Editing as an IP is allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. Every person who agrees with me on the Pete Buttigieg page -- that crime stats are a mayor's responsibility -- is accused of being my sockpuppet. I am not User:216.130.236.20. I am not User:172.58.227.5. I am not User:AOKuneff. I am not User:2600:1002:b01c:765b:ec7b:235e:9217:524e. How can I prove that? Is an unbiased checkuser able to confirm?

Decline reason:

There is technical evidence in the form of checkuser data linking this account to that of AOKuneff, and for this reason, this account cannot be unblocked. ST47 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2019 (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 will not review this, but a Checkuser cannot disprove a connection. There is a difference between an increase in crime on a mayor's watch and causing said increase, you are claiming the latter without actual evidence, just suppositions and inferences that you want to be true to embarrass the mayor. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about User:69.200.249.164? Is that you? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:69.200.249.164. With regard to our disagreements, if the coach of a basketball team starts losing games, it could just be the players fault, but the coach shares in the blame. However, while we disagree apparently, neither of the 2 of you suppressed the edit I made on 03:32, 11 November 2019, which was definitely NOT a copyright violation. Certainly I made sure to not violate WP:Synth. I don't know why I was permabanned for insisting that this edit was not a copyright violation. I'd like to be unbanned to continue respectful discussions. DouggCousins (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 days seems like a while to not get a response to my unblock request. When should I expect to hear about my ability to edit again? DouggCousins (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a checkuser can lift the block, or at least clear the lifting of the block, and they are even more limited in number than administrators. It's quite possible your block will expire before it is reviewed. In addition- though I won't formally review this out of fairness to you- a simple denial is not sufficient in sockpuppetry cases. You will need to go into more detail about your circumstances and why we think you are a sock when you aren't. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bbb blocked me indefinitely, so my editing's on hodl. DouggCousins (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I was going by the notice above. As I indicated, checkusers are limited in number, and are volunteers like most of the rest of us. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have technical data linking me to User:216.130.236.20, User:172.58.227.5, User:2600:1002:b01c:765b:ec7b:235e:9217:524e and User:69.200.249.164? Still trying to figure out how I could be linked to AOKuneff as you claim; however, posts from all these accounts have been deleted on accusations of sockpuppetry.. DouggCousins (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC) @ST47:[reply]

Technical data linked you to the named account (user:AOKuneff). Behavioral analysis such as similarity of edits linked you to the various IPs, which all geolocate to the same geographical area. Checkusers are not allowed to comment on whether or not named accounts edited from any specific IPs. This is to help protect the editor's privacy, as geolocation can be used to help determine an editor's real-world identity. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Checkusers are allowed to comment on whether or not named accounts edited from any specific IPs. That's literally the purpose of sock investigations. Are you afraid of proof you banned unique editors under false pretences? DouggCousins (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Please comment @ST47:[reply]

Sorry but you are mistaken. Here is the policy page; see the section on privacy CheckUser and the privacy policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you literally suppressed my non-plagiarized edit under false pretences of copyright violation. Furthermore, checkuser's described as a tool accessing "technical data stored by the server about a user account *or IP address*." So your links prove me correct. Again, I repeat my question to User:ST47. You have technical data linking me to User:216.130.236.20, User:172.58.227.5, User:2600:1002:b01c:765b:ec7b:235e:9217:524e and User:69.200.249.164? Thank you. DouggCousins (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC) @ST47:[reply]

For the record, six checkusers have reviewed this now, and all we've found is more sockpuppets. Your talk page access is revoked for wasting our time. Also, 331dot, checkusers can disprove a connection in some cases. This is not one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]