User talk:Woodgridge

Welcome!

Hello, Woodgridge! 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! XXX8906 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dr. K. 00:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a sockpuppetry accusations and do not read the defence at all. Look what I wrote just at the beginning of my defence:

1st I emphasize that I will answer only the accusations till now. I'll neither respond nor accept any further accusations. Continuously accusing someone by creating new allegations at each time is not accepted in any normal law system; even the claimers are requested to present all of their proofs at the beginning of the case. Any further proofs are not accepted unless the defender accepts them.

Worst than that you are not reading the edit summaries as well! You wrote in the edit summary: "do not remove content from pages on WP without giving a valid reason for the removal". Read read read! Read the edit summary: "I specified at first: I will answer only the accusations till now! No to never-ending new accusations. Let the decision be made first.".Woodgridge (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming. Dr. K. 21:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.K., you are not allowed to continuously accusing a Wiki user by bringing newer and newer accusations. I said at the beginning that "I am closed to any new accusations". You should respect the defence of the defender and the judgement of the ones who will judge on your first accusations.Woodgridge (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your never-ending accusations Dr.K.! You are clearly trying to drive to an infinite loop of defence/accuse helix:

new accusation; my warning; new accusation; new accusation; my 2nd warning; new accusation; my 3rd warning...

At each time I am emphasizing that "I am closed to never-ending accusations!", and at each time Dr.K. is trying to bring forward new things.Woodgridge (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to present whatever evidence they deem appropriate at SPI. Rest assured, if they are unfounded you will be exonerated and have nothing to worry about. Do not remove others' comments from the SPI again or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks for your understanding — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose whatever the users present as "evidences" they deem appropriate at SPI. They can even bring tens of accusations at first. What I oppose is the bringing forward newer and newer "baseless" (known by themselves as well!) never-ending accusations intentionally. Look, in my case, Dr.K. diverted to block me via forcing me violate 3 Revert Rule this time. See his edit summary: Rvvx2.Woodgridge (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

↑disruptive editing↑ 24.15.68.186 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sockpuppet!

24.15.68.186 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep IP24.15.68.186's distruptive [sic] editing here so that when IP24.15.68.186 are [sic] investigated for this and any other distruption [sic], the others will know the misbehavour [sic] of the IP24.15.68.186 very well.Woodgridge (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP24.15.68.186 belongs to [Chicago, Illinois/USA] from here and here.Woodgridge (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol 24.15.68.186 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Bbb23 states "Behavioral evidence is persuasive" for the reason of blocking. This is very blurring reason. I kindly request Bbb23 to specify what sort of behaviors he observed. I will then request unblock based on the given reasoning.Woodgridge (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 September 2016: I am still waiting clarification for "Behavioral evidence".

06.07.2016: Sock allegation was raised.

28.08.2016: Banned by the statement "Behavioral evidence is persuasive" without any further clarification.Woodgridge (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I want my defence here to be evaluated once again carefully. After sockpuppet allegation was raised in 06.07.2016, I was blocked in 28.08.2016 with the reasoning "Behavioral evidence". Woodgridge (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence is overwhelming, so much so I can't imagine a scenario that could account for the similarities if you were indeed a separate individual.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 28 September 2016 (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.