Canepa
 | Start a new discussion thread |
Welcome edit
|
Hello Canepa. Your name has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Michael Shrimpton edit
Please read Talk:Michael Shrimpton before doing anything else on that article. The banner is there to give the original editor a change to add proper citations (and to demonstrate notablility), otherwise the artcile is liable to be deleted. Removing the banner will count towards a WP:3RR, adding it does not. Martinvl (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your abuse of the {{BLP unsourced}} template certainly counts towards your 3RR tally, and your undisclosed removal of references from the references section in the same edit may indead lead to more serious charges. Perhaps you should review your own actions before throwing your weight around, and before you get an WP:ANI filed against you for it. Canepa (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another editor has undone your abuse of that template, lucky for you it would seem. Canepa (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Martinvl, the proper tag would be the {refimproveblp} - there is one legit source that mentions the subject.
- Canepa, self posted resumes are not suitable general sources/references nor appropriate external links.
- You two should stop bickering like an old married couple and maybe consider a voluntary interaction ban before one gets placed on you. Wikipedia is a big place, you dont need to follow each other around poking at each other. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Block appeal edit
Canepa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is invalid because, given that the relevant Wikipedia policies have not been properly applied or complied with, the judgment is not safe or supportable.
- WP:Sock requires that for a sock-puppet accusation to be able to be upheld that the account must have been used for an improper purpose.
- No improper purpose has been alleged, let alone demonstrated in this case.
- WP:Sock requires that sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny is required.
- No such evidence exists in this case.
- WP:SPI requires that investigations may only be opened if clear evidence that two or more users are likely to have the same operator and be breaching policy is provided.
- No such evidence was provided in this case as there were plausible alternative explanations provided and available for all the accusations made.
- WP:SPI requires “without exception” clear simple evidence showing that the listed accounts are likely to be operated by the same individual.
- No such evidence was supplied in this case.
- WP:Blocking policy requires that “blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.”
- The blocking administrator has not given good reasons here or provided reviewable evidence that his judgment is reasonable.
- Furthermore, the blocking administrator has not shown that he has properly considered the alternate explanations (as advised in WP:SIGNS#Possible signs) as given by the accused, or reasoned why they were less plausible explanations for the creation and use of this account than the speculation provided by the reporter.
- The block stands on nothing more than the statement: “I'm convinced that Canepa is in fact DeFacto, and have indef blocked as such.”, which as an assertion unsupported by evidence or reasoning cannot be independently reviewed if requested.
- WP:Blocking policy requires that administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.
- No such message was left on my talk page.
Additionally there are irreconcilable differences and inconsistencies in the analyses of the two participating administrators:
- On the one hand the checkuser refused to perform a checkuser check because he thought that there was not enough evidence to make enough of a connection between the suspect and the master.
- On the other hand the blocking administrator justified his actions stating that comparing behavior and styles he was convinced that Canepa is in fact DeFacto.
Without examples and diffs from the latter, how can a third-party verify those conclusions? In fact the blocking administrator admits on his own talkpage that blocking on behaviour is very tricky and not without risk.
For the reasons above, combined with the clear reassurance given in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims that “If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding.”, this account should be unblocked.
Decline reason:
You pointed out: “If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding.” The opposite is also true, though, and that's what happened here. Your unblock request boils down to a generic rejection of the SPI conclusion from Dennis Brown, but I'm inclined to support the conclusion. Everything you've done advertises the fact that you're not a new editor, that you have a particular agenda and grudges that go back farther than the creation of this account and match Defacto. -- Atama頭 19:17, 21 August 2012 (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.
Hello Atama. Did you read my statement in the SPI? If you did, you will see that I explained fully that I was not a new editor. I had even added a list on my user page of the areas of Wikipedia where I had been active for years before (deleted by Dennis Brown in this edit). So one of your points in null and void as there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Can you supply a few diffs and examples of what you think shows "a particular agenda" and of what you think shows the "grudges" please. Then I should be able to give the simple and reasonable explanations of those too. Do you agree with my points that the administrators concerned showed scant regard for the procedures laid down in the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines when dealing with tis case? And we still haven't seen the requisite evidence that will stand up to scrutiny and which shows that I breeched the policy. Please read through what has been alleged and what I have written in defence, and please reconsider. Canepa (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm taking a longer look at this and discussing matters with the blocking administrator. I based my conclusions on the fact that you were obviously an experienced editor from your first edit, and the assertions of Dennis Brown, whose judgement I trust. I didn't realize that you had self-disclosed as an experienced editor due to previous anonymous contributions, and looking through your contributions I'm beginning to have doubts. I'll admit, also, that your unblock request seemed somewhat "Wikilawyerish" to me which automatically gave me doubt to your appeal; people innocently blocked for sockpuppetry usually behave differently in my experience. I need to see what Dennis Brown found that convinced him you are a sockpuppet before making a decision. I'll let you know what I decide whether or not I decide to unblock you. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)