User talk:Gerbelzodude99
Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Gerbelzodude99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 21:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I just posted the following in the ANI thread you initiated:
- Suspect is too weak a word. A brand new account created yesterday, whose first edit was to (properly formatted) nominate an article for deletion, and then launch an ANI complaint against a user, is clearly a sockpuppet of one form or another.
- From WP:ILLEGIT (illegitimate uses of sockpuppet accounts, under WP:SOCK) -
- Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.[1]
- Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
- "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.
- Gerbelzodude99 - If you would like to come clean as to your other account, and agree to abide by WP:SOCK in the future and not act disruptively, we can wrap this up without further sanction. Please cooperate here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said there - you are obviously violating the policy at this point. If you come clean as to who you are we can just wrap up the extra account and not further sanction you for this. But this type of behavior is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- As you have gone quiet rather than answer the question, I am indefinitely (but not permanently) blocking your account. You may still identify yourself and clear this up if you like, without further consequences, and if you want to use this as your new primary account going forwards and you communicate that you will abide by policy, we can unblock this one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. 
Gerbelzodude99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I swear that I am not an "alternate account" or anything. I edited as an IP for a few weeks so I know some thing about wikipedia. I am not a "sockpup" and you can do an IP check on me if you want. I'm that positive over it.
Decline reason:
What is this supposed IP that you edited from? NW (Talk) 03:14, 28 November 2009 (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.
Gerbelzodude99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please refer this matter to GeorgeWilliamHerbert, as he was waiting for my response. And for the record, I did not "go quiet," I just wasn't using the computer for a little while. I'm not on the computer 24 hours a day, sorry.
Decline reason:
You ask that this be referred to GeorgeWilliamHerbert, yet he says you are clearly a WP:SOCK, and you say you are not. So, referring it to him seems unlikely to get you unblocked, but I will drop him a note about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2009 (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 have filed a SPI (Sockpuppet Investigation) / Checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerbelzodude99 to investigate and disambiguate this situation. If you would like to comment, you can make a statement here and I or another admin can copy it over to the SPI page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- checkuser results indicate that there is no other apparent account involved on the IP. I have just unblocked your account.
- I would like to apologize if we overreacted. Your actions were amazingly sophisticated for a new user, and given the particular edits you made raised significant concerns. We strongly prefer if people focus on the encyclopedia contents, and brand new editors who focus on administrative stuff is rare and troubling. However, if you were participating as an IP for some time, that would explain it to some extent.
- The IP editor you filed the ANI case about had a point, however, that when you claimed he was stalking you, your contributions were brand new. Whatever you were doing under your IP address, your account is "new to us" and you can't be blaming him for stalking you. He and everyone else had no idea who you are or were.
- FYI, due to privacy concerns, only the checkusers who did the check on you have access to your information and IP address. I have no idea what it was.
- Good luck in editing in the future. If you can establish a bunch of article-focused editing on the record it will help your reputation on line etc. This note here and the Checkuser report establish that the sockpuppetry fears were a mistake and unfounded.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
AFD
[edit]I have just speedily closed two of your AFD nominations. Please be aware of the deletion pre-requisites detailed at WP:BEFORE. In particular, if you have concerns about an article, please discuss them at the article's talk page before taking the matter to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have noticed several of your nominations on the WP:AfD were speedy kept. I recommend you find specific points in Wikipedia policy under which grounds would warrant a deletion, instead of POV statements like "Wikipedia is not an antiquarian" (we also have a policy that states what Wikipedia is not). Mkdwtalk 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerbelzodude99 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. |