User talk:Life Rabbit

WP:Sockpuppetry

Please note that it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to edit with another account name to avoid scrutiny of one's edits. in addition, since User:Bodole has been blocked from editing anything connected to Jacy Reese Anthis, using another account (such as this one) to edit Jacy Reese Anthis and The End of Animal Farming would be block evasion, which can get Bodole blocked from editing Wikipedia in general. Please also note our policy on WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits you disagree with does not make me a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Please discuss on the talk page. Life Rabbit (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

Hello, Life Rabbit. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Jacy Reese Anthis, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits you disagree with does not make me a COI editor either. Please discuss on the talk page. Life Rabbit (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 3 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am just trying to fix the page. I don't understand why my account is blocked. The only reason seems to be WP:DUCK that I look like a sockpuppet. Just because I disagree with an editor, or agree with another editor, doesn't make me a sockpuppet. I don't know how else to defend myself here. What proof could I possibly offer? What evidence could I present? Life Rabbit (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Regardless, since you have said below that a) you agree to a topic ban and b) you have no plans to edit any part of the encyclopedia other than the page you are topic-banned from ("Topic ban if you want. I'm not planning to edit anything else right now"), there is no reason to lift the block as you apparently have no intention to edit. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:15, 4 June 2020 (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.

Reviewing admin: please see Ponyo's comment on this SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

So you walk in out of the blue and become embroiled in a content dispute, taking the position of an editor whos has been WP:topic banned from that subject? (deep breath). Ok, what would you say to a WP:topic ban on Jacy Reese Anthis as a condition for unblocking? Please. Give us some examples of the constructive edits you would make.. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would suggest not unblocking for a week. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanting to know my reasoning on this matter can free fill to email me. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the TB is "broadly construed", I have no objection, based on your best judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it out of the blue. I heard about issues with this page (there are blog posts and numerous Facebook threads about it, and offline discussions among related social groups in the LessWrong domain), so I took a look. I saw some obvious factual inaccuracies: the name of his wife is not Witwicki anymore and he no longer writes under the name Jacy Reese. This New York Times article says his wife took Anthis as her last name, and all of his publications (example) since his wedding have been under Anthis, not Reese. I also saw an NPOV issue with the book page (the 3 quotations were negative when it also says coverage was "mostly positive") and that the COI tag hadn't been removed following the edits, so I made those changes too. Yes, some of this involved putting back in content that Beyond My Ken had deleted and Bodole had originally added.

Topic ban if you want. I'm not planning to edit anything else right now. I just saw factual inaccuracies so I stepped in to fix them. I didn't think this would be controversial. I saw SarahSV, Paleo, and other people being reasonable on the talk page so I figured the changes would be obvious improvements or I would be corrected on why they were problematic. I really don't see an issue with my edit, though I don't know how I can go about proving I'm not a sockpuppet. And I really don't see why this Beyond My Ken guy gets to be the arbiter of all things holy when it comes to the Jacy Reese Anthis pages.

Thoughts? Life Rabbit (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Life Rabbit. Would you be able to link those discussions that brought you here? It would help everyone to know what we're dealing with here. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]