Alextiffin88
Welcome!
|
Alextiffin88, you are invited to the Teahouse
edit
|
Hi Alextiffin88! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Alextiffin88, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Beatrice Wind Farm has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
January 2019
editRaised Arb Case on Philip Cross and suddenly cannot edit
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alextiffin88. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
Alextiffin88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I set up a new account as I had forgotten my old account details, I got back in and was editing again. I'm so upset, I generally just edit windfarms and oil fields. Please help, delete my new account if neccesary. I did not understand, I use my real name so as I cannot be accused of bias I just set that account up as I couldn't remember my details. I am trying hard to learn and now I cannot. Alex Tiffin (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
remove duplicate see below -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2019 (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.
Alextiffin88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have requested that the page for my new account is deleted. This has come about as I raised a genuine question on ArbCom about a certain user. I have then been attacked and picked on by a certain user who says I was making it up. I am new to editing so asked genuinely, I did not know about having two accounts was banned. Please consider lifting the ban, I'm happy to be on probation etc. I have never vandalised a page and use the talk page to learn and gain consensus. One user has taken issue and gone after me.
Decline reason:
So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. This is a WP:checkuser/WP:sockpuppet block. Please read the WP:GAB for unblock instructions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2019 (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.
I read the instructions I understand that I made an error Dlohcierekim by having two accounts but how can I remedy this?
Please see NSH001 talk page.
I asked for username deletion of the other account.
At no time was I switching accounts. I made an error and have now been reading the WP rules more. I have been engaging in talk pages and was not making disruptive edits.
Can you advise how I can sort this situation out? I'm find editing theraputic and as you can see In have been editing pages on windfarms and power substations. I only set up the other account as I couldn't login to this one.
Please help.
Unblock request
edit Alextiffin88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I read the unblock instructions and I understand and fully accept that I made an error by having two accounts but how can I remedy this BU Rob13? I asked for username deletion of the other account. I promise to not set up another account and to be more vigilant in my edits. At no time was I switching between accounts to make edits as can be seen from logs. I simply switched once I regained access. Please see NSH001 talk page for further information. They can explain better than I can. I understand I made an error and have now been reading the WP rules more to help educate myself. I had been engaging in talk pages and was not making disruptive edits. All my edits I made in good faith. If I was wrong I accepted it. Can you advise how I can sort this situation out? I'm find editing theraputic and as you can see In have been editing pages on windfarms and power substations. See Blackhillock Substation and Beatrice Wind Farm which I created. I was mid creation of Novar Wind Farm when I was blocked and lost so much progress. I only set up the other account as I couldn't login to this one at the time. I totally understand why I was blocked, but it was a genuine error by myself. You will see that the new account I set up was not involved in vandalism and indeed I didn't try to hide anything. I engaged politely and asked for help. I appeal for good faith in this situation. I'm aware my account may be more scrutinized from here on in. I just want to help improve the site as I have been. I did not know at the time what I was doing was a breach of the rules. If I'd intended to make disruptive edits with the new account I wouldn't have continued editing pages I had previously as it would make it obvious. I promise to operate only this account from now on and to engage constructively with admins and editors to be a better editor. Would an unblock with the condition that I: "only operate a single account,(this one), for 12 months," be acceptable or helpful? Alex Tiffin (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline because this is a checkuser block based on information other admins can't see. If the blocker, BU Rob13, is convinced by the above they will unblock you. Sandstein 06:11, 18 January 2019 (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.
Thank you sandstein that helps clarify things I didn't know that. Will they see the request then even though it's closed? I can't contact them.
- Hi BU Rob13 I understand that I made an error by having a second account namely randomiser67.
- I did not do this as an attempt to evade a ban, make malicious edits or edit war.
- I am truly sorry for this and as you can see from my history, once I regained access to this account, I stopped using my new one.
- I made it completely obvious that I was the same person.
- I hope I can be allowed a second chance on good faith.
- I am happy to take any advice as I never intended to offend.
- Could I please have the evidence sent by icewhiz as they stated they had submitted evidence on my Arbcom request.
- I opened it as I believed there was a possible breach. You dealt with the original case and I know you're well informed.
- I made it in good faith and some of the other editors, including NSH001 agree he "may" have been testing the boundaries.
- The case has been closed so I accept that as final.
- I will not open any further accounts as I want to be able to edit freely and will await your decision.
- I do truly apologize and wish for a second chance even if with conditions.
Kind regards
- Alextiffin88 Friday 18th January 2019, 10:13
- Personally, I'm not convinced this was all "above board". The second account was used to create an autobiographical draft, which was never touched by your main account. To me, that looks like trying to hide the association, especially when one of your edit summaries of the second account referred to yourself in the third person. I do not intend to lift this block, but you are welcome to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee by emailing arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. ~ Rob13Talk 13:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd made that in sandbox thing as a test to see how it all works. You can see I have to repeatedly fix things.
I never set out to do anything bad. I just wanted to edit so it's accurate. It is very obvious it's me that had both accounts and as I said, as soon as I regained access to my old account I stopped using the new one.
I may be an idiot yes but I certainly meant nothing malicious by it.
I'm sorry and I fully accept I did things wrong. I have never been in trouble before and am pleading for a second chance.
I'm so upset. Sorry for going on but this is something I feel strongly on as I have made a genuine error and am asking for a second chance with good faith even with conditions.
Please BU Rob13
--Alextiffin88 (talk)
Advice
editHello, Alextiffin88,
Having seen these kinds of blocks before, it would help your case if you identified all user accounts you have created and identify when you used them. Being unblocked means not only taking responsibility for whatever infraction you committed but being forthcoming with all information about the circumstances. Being unblocked can be a matter of trust and being forthcoming can help rebuild that trust. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Alleged sockpuppetry and some advice to Alex
editMy comments here should be read as preparatory work before appealing the problematic closure of the Philip Cross AE case. The second part is some personal advice to Alex regarding the proper or improper use of multiple accounts.
The two accounts aren't hiding anything
editI copy here part of my quick comment yesterday on GoldenRing's talk page:
Of course Checkuser will show the same IP address, the two accounts made no effort to try to conceal that they are the same person, and left plenty of evidence to that effect all over the place, including off-wiki. Of course I expect to deal with Rob as the blocking admin in the first instance, and that particular aspect is of course not for you to deal with. I was simply explaining that my main reason for appealing is that Sandstein ignored my first comment this morning, which pointed out that Alex is not really sockpuppeting. Not a good idea to set up two accounts, but understandable for a relatively inexperienced editor who lost access to his first account. He is obviously not intending to deceive editors into thinking they are separate accounts, which is the definition of sockpuppeting. And, nota bene, I won't hesitate to point out intended deception when I see it, even for an editor for whom I have the highest respect. There are obviously other reasons as well for appealing, but Sandstein's ignoring my comment is the main one.
It is blindingly obvious that Alextiffin88 and Randomiser67 are the same person:
- Randomiser67 was created on 2018-06-25 and has only made 32 edits
- Alextiffin88 was created on 2013-12-23 and has made only 164 edits in that time
- Randomiser67 created the article about Alex: Draft:Alex Tiffin on 12/11/2018
- this article states that Alex lives in Culbokie, that his twitter handle is @RespectIsVital and he's appeared on RT discussing the "brutal" effects of the benefits system
- Randomiser67 tried to set up File:Alex Tiffin and Hugh Grant.jpg and Draft:RespectIsVital Blogger
- Randomiser67 made several edits to Culbokie, where Alex lives
- Alextiffin88's user page, before it was obliterated with the sockpuppet tag, states that Alex lives in Culbokie and that his twitter handle is @RespectIsVital
- Alextiffin88's edits are mostly about the area he lives in, oilfields and renewable energy projects
In short, almost everywhere you look, it's obvious that Randomiser67 is owned by Alex. There is no real sockpuppetry going on, apart perhaps from one (and only one) overlap where Randomiser67 removed a photo from Rachel Riley on 10 January and 5 days later Alextiffin88 removed the same photo. I see this case as an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user.
Advice to Alex
editIt isn't necessary that one of your accounts be deleted. What you should do is post a notice on each of your user pages drawing attention to the other account. Yes, I know the relation is pretty obvious from the above, but it helps to be open and clear. You should pick one of your accounts (I strongly recommend Alextiffin88, as it's the older account, and has more edits), and stick to using that account only. If you have any other accounts – I don't think you do – you should list them as well on the user pages. You should also post an explanation of how you came to have more than one account.
FWIW, I have a legitimate second account, User:NSH002, which links back to my main account, and my main user page lists, and gives an explanation of all my other accounts. Since everything is open, there is no sockpuppetry involved.
--NSH001 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Dear NSH001 firstly, thank you for the advice.
Should I be unlocked I will implement the advice about linking the two accounts.
Secondly, I apologize that you became involved. I opened the AE as I genuinely believed there was an infraction. PC edited Rachel Riley on January 9th after she had told George Galloway to "fuck off". It was on this that I based the reasoning of the breach but poorly worded. User Icewhiz immediately discounted my concern and said evidence had been privately emailed about me. I'm assuming that is why I've been blocked. Icewhiz has been taking ownership of Rachel Riley and has today removed a section which the talk was in consensus should stay.
I then uncovered that Philip Cross had edited linked to Kamm in November. Although this is classed as "stale" it is extremely relevant as, his Arbcom which was incidentaly overseen in part by BU Rob13, centred on Galloway and Kamm. I did enclose the diff for this.
I am very good at researching process rather than putting into action as can be seen by my repeated edits to fix even templates.
I finish with thanking you for helping explain my situation, it means a lot as I was really upset about losing the ability to edit. I use it as therapy.
I raised the AE as I like things to be right. I was polite to PC and even asked Icewhiz for help to no avail.
Thanks Alex
--Alextiffin88 (talk) 13:53 GMT, January 18th 2019
Footnote
editI was going to ping Rob, but haven't done so as he's already been pinged above. Rob, please consider all this section as addressed to you as well as Alex. --NSH001 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I also note here that it remains my intention to appeal the AE case to Arbcom. I was reluctant to get involved in the first place (I hate getting involved in ANI-type discussions BTW, and this is my first time at AE), but now that I have invested so much effort in it, I am not going to give up. It's the job of Admins at AE to enforce Arbcom decisions, and they should do their job. --NSH001 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Unblock
edit Alextiffin88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
BU Rob13 please consider unblocking me. I did not intend to break the rules. I'll do it with conditions happily. I can see why you are unsure but it can be seen that account Randomiser67 and this one are the same. I only did the autobiographical draft as a test to see how it was done. My grammar is not the best but I do try. I mainly do stuff for my local area such as Beatrice Wind Farm and I had just created Novar Wind Farm. If unblocked, I will put clear notifications on both accounts namespace pages to show that they are linked and both owned by myself; Alex Tiffin. I have made a mistake but ask for a second chance. I acted in good faith and was even putting warnings on IP pages that had vandalized the Rachel Riley page. I did this as the page had become biased against her, hence why I asked it be protected. I plead for a second chance. I will make it my mission to engage more on talk pages and learn direct from other users so I can make a positive contribution. I do not intend to use any other account as I have access to my main one back. Nevertheless as I said, I'll put clear notification on Randomiser67 to link to this account. For any mistakes I made I am deeply sorry. I take full responsibility and ask for a second chance with good faith. I understand any further infractions would be the final nail. I thank you for your time in reading this. Kind regards Alex Tiffin Alex Tiffin (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As the blocking admin has indicated that he is not willing to unblock you and that your only remaining appeal options are with the Arbitration Committee, I am declining this unblock request and revoking your talk page access so as not to waste more administrators time reviewing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2019 (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.
[User:Alextiffin88|Alex Tiffin]] (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As noted above, I do not intend to unblock you, and your remaining appeal option lies with the Arbitration Committee. ~ Rob13Talk 03:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)