Jump to content

User talk:Ralfellis

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

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Ralfellis! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! WegianWarrior (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Wiki Markup

[edit]

Hello.

I noticed in your most recent edit that you find Wikipedia's markup (it's kind of like HTML but not quite) confusing. You're right to do so -- it's a weird system. For future reference, perhaps this link will serve as a helpful references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup. It contains a summary of a lot of different things you can do with Wiki markup. Alephb (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017: puppet warning

[edit]

Hello, Ralfellis. Now that you have posted at the sockpuppet investigation, I hope you also read my comments there, specifically this. In response to your own post, I'd better give you an explicit warning here on your page. At the SPI I had referred to the policy WP:MEAT; the relevance of that becomes even more obvious now that you have yourself stated that you "had to rely on freinds and supporters to make any revisions on my behalf". My italics. Please go to the WP:MEAT link and read. What you see there is Wikipedia policy: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." Any sockpuppets or meatpuppets editing on your behalf will be blocked on sight. If you disrupt Wikipedia again by using them, your own account Ralfellis will also be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

It looks like I was too nice and assumed too much good faith on your part. Since you have now acknowledged Narwhal2 as a sock of yours[1], and Narwhal2 is in turn linked to a whole sockfarm here (confirmed by checkuser Tiptoety), you have clearly been violating our policy on sockpuppetry for at least 10 years. I have blocked you indefinitely, and would not object to a site ban if one was proposed. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 24 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request an unblock. I have been blocked because of additional usernames (sockpuppets). But I only had to use additional usernames, because Dougweller has been trying to delete me from Wiki for ten years now. Dougweller does not like my edits, as I presume he finds them controversial, but they are all reasoned and within the bounds of Wiki policy. The current dispute is a case in point, where my edit to the The Exodus has finally been accepted, after three months of debate. (It was a single sentence quoting two words from Josephus Flavius - a historian who has thousands of quotations on other Wiki pages.)

In the process of making this small update I was banned - not because my edit was outrageous or violated Wiki policy, but because I was using a new username. But I was only using a new username, because Dougweller banned me over ten years ago, and has continued to ban me for using new usernames to circumvent the original username ban. But the original ban was unjustified, and based upon the personal preferences and views of Dougweller. If I can be shown to have been making inappropriate edits to Wiki pages, a ban would indeed be justified. But all my updates, like the 'intermitancy of wind power' (now called 'variability') have eventually been accepted. Renewable variability now even has its own Wiki page and has become mainstream, although it was deemed to be a heresy ten years ago that resulted in a ban.

So I request an unblock, and to use my original username. I have been banned for over ten years now, but I think I have demonstrated good and reasonable edits since that time. And a further ban, simply because I was banned ten years ago on wholly unreasonable charges, is no longer justified.

Ralfellis (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you are blocked, you are not allowed to create new accounts to continue editing. And using an unblock request to attack other editors will not get you unblocked. I think the WP:STANDARDOFFER is probably the best you are going to get right now - stay away for at least six months with no socking and then make an unblock request from your original account. (Even then I don't rate your chances very highly considering the extent of your socking, but I think it's your only chance.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2017 (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.

Boing! said Zebedee, could you clarify whether Ralph is being extended the standard offer? JerryRussell (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @JerryRussell: the standard offer is available to all blocked editors, that's why it's the standard offer. There are some users who won't ever succeed, but they can always try. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "using an unblock request to attack other editors will not get you unblocked"
Just giving you the facts, Zebedee, and I cannot change the facts. Like when I was called a 'climate denier', for writing a very successful peer-review science paper on paleoclimatology. And the subsequent comment: 'I'm surprised he got published'. These are the same opinions that got me banned ten years ago, but they do not appear very impartial. Again, just giving you the facts, because that is what any decision process requires - facts. Ralfellis (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another fact is that you are not permitted to create new accounts to edit while blocked, and one more on top of that is that you spent 10 years doing exactly that. Have a peek at WP:STANDARDOFFER and come back in six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ralfellis, I'm always amazed at what I learn when I take the time to read the policies. WP:STANDARDOFFER isn't a policy or guideline, it's just an essay. The blocking policy, which is at WP:BLOCK, says If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on WP:ANI.

Hey, 'editors' includes me, right?

And what happens after six months, under the standard offer? The user has to find a friendly admin or editor willing to open a thread at ANI. So we're in exactly the same place six months from now, as we are today!

But, Ralph, any editor who would open such a thread is going out on a limb. In a sense, that editor is staking their own Wikipedia reputation on the future behavior of that blocked editor. It's not a responsibility to be taken on lightly.

Wikipedia editing is basically a cooperative process. The only way anyone ever gets any edits into the encyclopedia, is by working with other editors until there's a general agreement that the edits conform with all the policies. You can't go assuming that everyone who disagrees with any of your edits, is some sort of fascist who is trying to suppress 'the Truth'. In many cases, they're just insisting that the edits comply with the basic policies like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

It may be true that Doug Weller doesn't agree with your ideas about climate change, or about biblical research. It might even be true that's the real reason he is always involved in blocking you. That doesn't matter. The first time he blocked you, he probably had a good, policy based reason. Something like a WP:3RR violation, or failure to assume good faith WP:AGF, or inappropriate self-citation as a violation of WP:COI. And every time you've been blocked since, it's at least partly because you never followed the procedure to get yourself unblocked.

There are good reasons for the policies against editing while blocked, too. The editors want to make sure you understood what happened, so that it doesn't happen again. Although there's also a confusion between "sock-puppeting" vs. "editing while blocked". I don't see any evidence you've ever simultaneously operated multiple accounts for the purpose of manipulating consensus.

Ralph -- would you consider apologizing, right here, for having evaded your past blocks? It's a community standard here: if somebody blocked you, it's important to go through the proper procedures to understand what caused the problem. The purpose is to restore good faith with the other editors. JerryRussell (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JerryRussell: before you get too deep into this, I think you should know that this user has a history of being intentionally deceptive and disruptive through the use of multiple accounts, and unless they are genuinely mistaken about their own Wikipedia history, the ongoing deception continues in this latest unblock request. The only thing Ralfellis/Ralphellis/Narwhal2/whatever has ever been blocked for is using multiple accounts for illegitimate purposes (what I would call harassment, frankly), confirmed by a CheckUser here in 2010; there are no blocks earlier than this unless there are yet more undiscovered sockpuppet accounts. Furthermore Doug Weller has never blocked this user under any account. The older accounts were blocked by an administrator who has long since retired from Wikipedia, and the more recent accounts were blocked by Bishonen. Now he or you can try a block appeal whenever you might like, but consider that you have several well-regarded administrators recently opining that they would support a site ban if one were proposed, due to ongoing intentionally deceptive behaviour.
My advice is the same as Boing's: wait at least six months, and even then I don't think the chances are very good. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ivanvector, thanks for the advice, and for your thoughts.
I don't think Ralfellis is being intentionally deceptive at this point. I know of 2 blocks before this one. This user edited under the name of Ralphellis from 25 Nov. 2006 thru 22 Dec. 2006, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ralphellis. I'm no longer able to trace the reason that the account was blocked in 2006, but it appears he was making a lot of self cite edits. I don't know any reason to doubt that Doug Weller was involved somehow in that block.
In 2010 he was operating multiple accounts and I agree that he used them to harass Doug Weller, who posted the AN/I thread that led to the checkuser investigation and blocks.
As to the third previous block, he seems to be referring to some incident (perhaps before 2006?) when he was blocked for an edit relating to wind energy.
Since 2011 this user has been editing under the user name Tatelyle. As such, he's made some useful contributions to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't say he's been a model of the perfect editor, but he does have a realm of expertise. I think he has potential to become a more effective contributor if he can learn the policies and learn to be cooperative.
Tatelyle was only outed as Ralph Ellis recently as a result of my own proposal to use a Ralph Ellis citation in The Exodus, so I feel partly responsible for what happened. Otherwise I doubt that anyone would have figured it out. Also, Doug Weller and Bishonen had agreed to offer Ralph Ellis an amnesty for the 2006 incident. No one would have connected him to the 2010 incident if he hadn't self-reported it.
What is the benefit to waiting 6 months? The incident at The Exodus is fresh in everyone's minds now, whereas six months from now everyone will have forgotten. Or did I just answer my own question? :-) JerryRussell (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's well over two puppets blocked over the years. There's a whole sock farm. Alephb (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed. @JerryRussell: did I really use the word amnesty? As for the 2006 account, note that Ellis accuses me of this: "because Dougweller banned me over ten years ago". But I wasn't involved in the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis - an autobiography he wrote. I didn't edit the article either. So far as I know I didn't interact with him at any time. That account was blocked after it was discovered during the events that took place around the Tatelyle SPI. It was not blocked in 2006 as you seem to think it was. Nor did he get blocked or banned 10 years ago. There aren't even any warnings on his talk page.[2] Why do you believe his claims in the face of the evidence? How does his excuse for using multiple usernames in 2010 hold water? There is no "third block", there's the 2010 set of blocks and the 2017 set. Nothing was done to him in 2006. I've never used my Admin tools on any of his socks. As for his claim that his edits are all within policy, many, possibly most of Tatelyle's edits were unsourced, ie original research, which as you know is banned by policy. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alephb. My sockpupets were only used to overcome a ban which was most definitely unjustified. It was a ban for making a wind variability subsection on the Wind Power page. My addition was deleted four or five times, and then I was accused of 'vandalism' for adding it and banned. But we know that this ban was unjustified, as there is now a variability sub section on the wind power page. So my addition was indeed a valuable contribution, and not the 'vandalism' I was accused of, and banned for. I think my edit was back in 2004, when I wrote my magazine article on renewable energy. I think the ban was by Dougweller, but I cannot be sure - the revision history only goes back to 2006 for some reason. (Perhaps, as in this 2017 ban, another editor came in from nowhere to make the ban.)
I apologise for making subsequent sockpupets, but it is was the only way to continue my valuable Wiki editing. When you get a ban it does not say that this is for six months. As now, it simply says 'This account is a sock puppet of Ralphellis, and it has been blocked indefinitely.' How is one to know that the ban is only for six months? How is one to know that there is an appeals process? Indeed, I wrote by snail-mail to Wiki about the ban, and nobody mentioned an appeals process in the reply. So the only way of continuing my valuable edits, was via a new identity. And all these new identities were sequential, not parallel.
I only used dual sockpupets once, when Dougweller accused me of being incapable of writing a peer-review science paper and of being a 'denier' - a deliberately pejoritive term that impugned my character. And then another editor accused the Chinese of being simpletons, in what can only be construed as a racist rant. But that editor was not sanctioned at all. Since I have close contacts with China (all my books are published in Beijing, as was my peer-review science paper) I appeared on Wiki as myself, ralfellis, to defend my honour and to defend the Chinese people. And I think it was right to do so. The editor who delivered the racist diatribe should have been reprimanded, not myself. But because of that, I now find myself charged with additional sockpuppetry - even though I had been providing a valuable service to Wiki for ten years under the 'tatelyle' brand. Indeed, we have only reached this situation because I was honest, and my honesty is being punished. Had I been dishonest, you would not have known who 'tatelyle' was.
Alepb. But Alephb - is your sockpuppet complaint simply another way of achieving your goal in deleting my The Exodus edit? You and others have spent 3 months opposing a single two-word quote from Josephus Flavius, even though Josephus is quoted thousands of times on other Wiki pages. (It is clear from the 3-month debate on the 'talk' page that there has been a desire by the The Exodus editors to separate the Hyksos Exodus from the Israelite Exodus.) So is this sockpuppet complaint a method of playing the man, not the ball? Another way of separating the Hyksos Exodus from the Israelite Exodus, because it could not be achieved through normal Wiki procedures?
Ralph Ellis Ralfellis (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

You have no evidence that Doug Weller ever blocked you, so you should stop making that claim. No one said that the Chinese were simpletons, so you should retract that claim. You were not honest about Tatelyle -- you claimed he was your brother when you were confronted about your sockpuppetry. Only now are you admitting that Tatelyle is a sockpuppet of yourself. To pretend you're in this situation because you were honest is absurd. Despite your false claim that I argued for three months on Talk:The Exodus, I didn't. And despite your false claim that the "three month" discussion was all about a single quote from Josephus, it wasn't. And despite your claim that the discussion was all about keeping Josephus from being quoted, I never once claimed that Josephus couldn't be quoted. Not once.
It doesn't help anything to speculate about why I complained about your sockpuppetry. The bottom line is that Wikipedia policies don't allow sockpuppetry as a way of circumventing normal Wikipedia editing practices, no matter how valuable you may consider your own contributions. Blocking someone who continues to edit under a host of different accounts over a period of more than ten years isn't an attempt to circumvent normal procedure; it is normal procedure. It is the sockpuppetry that constitutes an attempt to circumvent normal procedure.
You should keep in mind that everything anyone writes, anywhere on Wikipedia, is permanently recorded. Making boatloads of false accusations won't get you anywhere, because these sorts of things can be easily looked up. Alephb (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is also untrue that the editing history at Wind Power goes back only to 2006. Here's the edits prior to [3]. Alephb (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alephb... Ralfellis was my brother, not Tatelyle, but I now understand that even that sibling 'encouragement' was not allowed. I did not realise, and I apologise. I would use Tatelyle here, but that account seems to have been deactivated and redirected to Ralfellis. All very confusing.
As to the quote from Josephus Flavius, you defended this deletion on numerous occasions, and even JerryRussell was forced to comment: "Please don't be obtuse, Alephb. You know what we're talking about." You seem to be very much of one mind with PiCo, who may have done some of the deletions. (You merely commented "I'm pretty sure I didn't remove it.")
Alephb... As to the Chinese being simpletons, Ian Thompson said:
"I once locked a door exiting my classroom (full of future engineers) because it wouldn't stay shut without locking. You could turn the lock in the wrong direction indefinitely, but only had to turn it in the correct direction for one rotation. When class ended, I watched several of them line up, spin the lock around the wrong way several times, nearly pull the handle off the door, turn the lock in the same direction, and repeat this three or four times before the next person in line did the same thing. One of my students was convinced that The Martian (film) was a documentary. This wasn't a linguistic error, he was able to define what a documentary is and he knew the term "science-fiction." He even knows who Matt Damon is. And the only things that will stop him from graduating in a couple of years are if he gets bored or his family decides that it's time for him to take a nominal position in his family's company."
Is this acceptable commentary on Chinese universities and students?
And Dougweller chipped in with:
"As for his article, I don't know why Elsevier has a journal whose peer review is all done by one Chinese university, but the fact that it allows an article written by people with no qualifications that I can see and that is, as I thought by a climate denier, shows that peer review doesn't always work.
Would Dougweller have said this about a peer review being 'all done by one American university'? (Does Dougweller not realise that any university will place the peer reviews out with many other institutions?) And so Dougweller was wrong, of course, because the Beijing University reviewers were half Chinese and half American - but his assumptions and prejudice were already on display.
And there is also a direct implication here that the 'peer review did not work', otherwise Ralph Ellis (a 'denier') would not have been able to publish a science paper. Again we see that Dougweller has an overt bias against myself, which appears to form the foundation for my present ban (which made by an editor who just came and went, leaving virtually no trace). In the circumstances, a defence against these assertions and accusations was quite justified, as is a defence against my continuing 10-year ban from Wiki.
Ralph Ellis Ralfellis (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, you're saying that Ralfellis is your brother, but you are using the Ralfellis account? Are you your own brother, or do you, Ralph (who uses Ralfellis) have a brother called Ralf, whose account you are now using? I'm confused. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry and meat puppetry are forbidden on Wikipedia so that we can have conversations that don't involve speaking to the digital equivalent of a family of ventriloquists disassembling and reassembling a stack of Russian dolls. You were, of course, free to pick this principle up at any time over the past ten years as a succession of something like a dozen known socks of you were blocked, with explanations given each time. Just so we're absolutely clear here, my comment here is about the nested properties of Russian dolls, and is in no way intended to insult the character of the Russian people. Nor do I mean to insult the ventriloquist community in any way. Alephb (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alephb said: "It is also untrue that the editing history at Wind Power goes back only to 2006."
Great, thanks Alpephb - but where are the edit records for 2004? Why are they missing? And please note that there is no subsection for 'intermittency' back in 2005, just as I said. Ralfellis (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Zebedee confused? Tatelyle asked his brother to write as Ralph, to defend the the honour of his brother. Which I now know was wrong, and I apologise for having a sibling username. Sorry, it will not happen again.
But this only happened because Dougweller was impugning my character in a manner that was unacceptable on any public forum. And Tatelyle could not defend Ralfellis. Wiki should really clamp down on personal abuse of this nature. As it says in one of the Wiki protocols, talk-discussions should be about the data, not the personalities involved. But Dougweller made this a personal issue, and is now trying to ban me for his making this a personal issue.
Ralph Ellis Ralfellis (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that this account, Ralfellis, is actually your brother's account? If so, you are not allowed to use it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list every account that you and your brother (or any other family or friends) have used, and tell us who created each account and which of you edited from each account. We need clarity about precisely which accounts are involved, or have ever been involved, here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alephb... You are only diverting attention with sockpuppetry, in order to separate the Hyksos Exodus from the Israelite Exodus. This is a diversionary tactic, to prevent my editing The Exodus page, and any other pages you are protecting. You are playing the man, because you lost the game on the The Exodus page, when playing the ball. And no, I have not had a dozen user names. And neither have I had consecutive names. I have tangled with Dougweller on three or four occasions at most. Ralfellis (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Alephb is not diverting attention. This discussion here should only be about your block, why you are blocked, and whether you can be unblocked. The content disagreement itself is not an issue for here, as admins have no say in that - if you can get unblocked, you can then discuss the content disagreement on the appropriate article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for anyone reviewing this issue later, the socks include User:Ralphellis, User:Ralfellis, User:Tatelyle, User:Disranter, User:Arnatorim, User:Samosterat, User:Hoogson, User:Narwhal2, along with whatever username(s) was/were supposedly blocked for vandalism in 2004. Whether this constitutes "something like a dozen," I'll leave for other editors to judge. Did you use some of these to edit the same articles in an overlapping fashion, or are you seriously expecting people to believe that you made each of these when the previous one was blocked in order to simply avoid blocks without using the multiple accounts abusively? Alephb (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide some more context for anyone else passing by here:

  • In case anyone wants to try to look into the allegation of a block in 2004 on an as-yet-unnamed account, the article wind power was split from wind turbine some time in 2005; the earlier edits referred above might be found in the earlier history of wind turbine. I have looked but there are no currently blocked accounts that far back in the article's history.
  • Ralphellis (talk · contribs) (Ralph with a ph) is the oldest account, which we're assuming is the original account. It was created in November 2006 and edited briefly on the subject of biblical historicity (my interpretation). A month after being created, the account went idle for no reason which is apparent on-wiki; they just left as far as I can tell. This account's only page history overlap with Doug Weller is separated by nine years - Doug did not interact with this account, ever.
  • This keeps coming up so I'm going to emphasize one last time: User:Ralphellis was not blocked in 2006. @JerryRussell: you can't trace the reason why they were blocked in 2006 because it never happened. Ralfellis is mistaken, or lying.
  • Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) is an admitted sockpuppet, created and started editing in 2009 about biblical historicity and wind power. They had a series of run-ins with Doug Weller on biblical articles (see [4]) and complained about Doug in several venues, such as this one and this one. A recurring theme in these complaints is that Narwhal2 exaggerated Doug's removal of author Ralph Ellis' fringe views or outright lied about Doug's behaviour, all the while failing to disclose that they are the author Ralph Ellis. That is intentionally deceptive and an extreme violation of WP:COI and of WP:PAID, though the latter was not created until several years later.
  • Narwhal2 went on to create a series of sockpuppet accounts to hound Doug Weller, brought to light here in October 2010 and possibly involving off-wiki harassment. All were confirmed by CheckUser and blocked indefinitely. These are the first blocks issued against any account.
  • Tatelyle (talk · contribs) was created in 2011, and edited only sporadically until returning to add Ralph Ellis' works to biblical historicity articles, creating conflicts most recently at Talk:Exodus (see [5]).
  • Ralfellis (talk · contribs) (Ralf with an f) is the newest account, created only last month and seemingly only to join the dispute already ongoing at Talk:Exodus. Ralfellis later admitted that they operated the Tatelyle account, although they have also variously claimed that this and other accounts are operated by their brother or other family members. It is only at this point, in September 2017, that Ralphellis, Ralfellis, and Tatelyle were first blocked, for deceitful abuse of multiple accounts.
  • Number of accounts confirmed or suspected of being operated by Ralphellis: 8 (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ralphellis). This includes accounts which may have been created by individuals recruited by Ralphellis to edit on their behalf.
  • Number of accounts listed above which were ever blocked by Doug Weller: 0

Manipulating multiple accounts to give the appearance of added support for one's position in a consensus-building exercise is an extreme violation of community trust, which often earns editors a long block or site ban even if they only do it once. Ralphellis has done it at least three times since 2009 up to last month, and has separately created multiple accounts to engage in harassment, which I find especially disgusting. And they are continuing to try to obfuscate this history by suggesting missing logs and events and interactions which did not occur, all the while continuing to perpetuate the content dispute while blocked. As such, talk page access revoked. Good luck with your appeal to WP:UTRS in no less than six months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ralfellis&oldid=805161722"