User talk:Rphysicist
Rphysicist (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
[edit]
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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Rphysicist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a legitimate account, which was created in February 2018, for editing articles relating to physics, physicists and the history of science. The account holder (myself) is a well-qualified professional mathematician/physicist who has made numerous contributions to Wikipedia articles on these topics. The account has never been misused in any way, and there was no justifiable reason for its being blocked in January, 2021. It seems the sole grounds for its being blocked was an accusation, without any reliable supporting evidence, that the account holder also had several other accounts. In fact, there was never any evidence provided for this accusation; the only grounds for the claim were that there had been edits made via other accounts on some of the same Wikipedia articles, and the "style" of the description of these accounts was similar. In fact, I do have two other accounts, but this is for legitimate reasons. As a mathematical physicist, with an interest also in the history of these subjects, it is preferable to restrict the subject matter on which edits are made either to the purely mathematical domain, or to physics, or to historical matters, and that was the purpose of these three different accounts. There was never any suggestion made that this account, or either of the other two, had ever been used in any way other than to make legitimate, well-informed, uncontroversial edits on topics within the purview of the stated purpose of the account. It is explicitly permitted for an account holder to hold more than one account, if it is for legitimate reasons, and these seem to be perfectly legitimate ones, which I have applied, and respected, for many years. The other two accounts: KarlJacobi and J.Kepler, date from 2008 and 2018 respectively, and have solely been used for these purposes. At this time J.Kepler is also blocked, and only the KarlJacobi account continues to be usable. A similar request is being made to unblock the J.Kepler account, on the same grounds. Rphysicist (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Why were you unresponsive during the sock puppet investigation? The user pages of all the accounts bar one start with the same word, which is unusual. Also, there is some checkuser evidence. On balance of evidence, I would say they are your accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2023 (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.
Tried to reply
[edit]I have tried to reply, using "reply", but it does not seem to function, and instead says that I should use the full page editor using "edit source". How can I reply directly to:PhilKnight or talk?
- Just post below - I'll see your message. PhilKnight (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]The Rphysicist and J.Kepler accounts were both created in February 2018, and had been in continuous use, without any problems, since then. The KarlJacobi account has existed since 2008, and was used regularly since then. As explained above, these accounts focussed on edits within three distinct areas of concentration: 1) physics and science history; 2) gravitation and geometry; and 3) developments following from the works of Carl Jacobi. Keeping focus primarily on these three distinct topics was the main reason for maintaining three accounts. There never was any violation of Wikipedia policy in their existence or their use.
I chose not to be involved in the "sock puppet" investigation, because I knew that the other accounts listed were not mine. They had been created by a number of students and colleagues, however, who had kindly agreed to add further content to the article on Tau functions, covering topics they were most familiar with. The accounts had a similar description because none of these had previous experience with Wikipedia editing, so they all just followed the same format, naming their accounts after well-known physicists or mathematicians and describing their purpose similarly to how I had done in my own. None of this involved anything deceptive, or contrary to Wikipedia rules.
It is unpleasant to be wrongly accused, and expected, by anonymous "administrators", to give explanations, when nothing incorrect or illegitimate has been done. The various students and colleagues who did their editing using these accounts were all well-intentioned, well-qualified contributors, with no other motive than helping to complete an article on a major topic in the field in the best possible way. KarlJacobi (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)