User talk:MorganConneely
MorganConneely, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi MorganConneely! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Altimgamr (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
MorganConneely (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi there Someguy, it seems you have blocked me? Not sure I understand why, as I have only made a few correct edits on a small number of articles which I am knowledgeable and passionate in the subject area. I must say its THIS practice (The assumption that my account is bogus without conclusive evidence), without any form of prior contact or notice, which steers people away from signing up of even considering editing Wikipedia. Having donated money to Wikipedia each year for the past four and contributed several hundred times without an account, I'd appreciate it if the block was lifted. Thank you.
Decline reason:
The evidence does not confirm your protest. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:06, 7 April 2014 (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.
MorganConneely (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Anthony, I request you precisely explain in detail what I myself have done whether accidental or deliberate through this exact account that has caused me to be blocked? As an administrator, I expect you can do so with understanding and maturity. Stating "The evidence does not confirm your protest" makes it appear you are blocking my account for a reason that would not be considered reasonable, and shows contempt for new users. I will quote the guidelines, in case you have forgotten them (as is suggested) - "Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of community principles in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence." Guilty until proven innocent, as it appears to be here, is an archaic and unfair political model. I request another moderator/person of authority give a secondary opinion. Regards, Morgan Raoul Conneely (I'm studying in my last year of MSc - Computing Systems for your information).
Decline reason:
Technical and behavioural evidence indicate that this account is a sockpuppet. The evidence is presented here. Yunshui 雲水 13:01, 7 April 2014 (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.
MorganConneely (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Yunshui, I am at a loss as to what I can do to prove I have had nothing at all to do with this other account. I feel as if I am dealing with administrators who are misusing their privileges and are effectively bullying me. While your responses link to the "evidence", you have not addressed my request to explain the evidence, such as precisely what incident caused my account to be suspected, and to be upgraded from suspected to banned. I have no reason for doing anything outside the guidelines, and my persistence to get my account unblocked should be convincing enough that. I live in New Zealand, so I would be very surprised if the IP addresses of these other accounts are similar. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Altimgamr/Archive#10_March_2014 proves conclusively that my account was added to the list of suspected accounts before my account was even created (18th March). Edit summaries prove I speak in a rather different manner than the perpetrator Altimgamr, and did not edit any of the same articles. I believe Bahooka has added my account to the list out of spite due to a very minor disagreement over an edit which he corrected. Several articles state repeatedly that mistakes are often made by administrators and the software used by them. I suggest Wikipedia administrators consider contacting users who have been suspected of any wrongdoing before punishments are enacted, even if that is through another website. Yet again, I am attempting to converse in good faith but the tall poppy syndrome that administrators are collectively displaying is immensely frustrating. I formally request contact with a higher-ranking member of this website as I am neither convinced nor happy with either of the administrators answers or attitudes when dealing with an entirely innocent individual (myself).
Decline reason:
" I am at a loss as to what I can do to prove I have had nothing at all to do with this other account." You should be, because Checkuser proved you were related. " you have not addressed my request to explain the evidence, such as precisely what incident caused my account to be suspected" And help you better avoid detection next time? Not bloody likely. "I live in New Zealand, so I would be very surprised if the IP addresses of these other accounts are similar." In other words, using a VPN or proxy didn't work and you are hoping we don't know about those things. "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Altimgamr/Archive#10_March_2014 proves conclusively that my account was added to the list of suspected accounts before my account was even created (18th March)." You're being disingenuous here, which doesn't help your case (laughable though it is) that you're not a sock, Yes, this account is listed under "March 10" but that hardly constitutes proof that it was put there on that date. In fact the very first comment below indicates that other accounts were added on March 18, the day the account was created, and then Bahooka added this one not long after its creation, after it had already made five edits. Since you have already mentioned elsewhere that Bahooka was the one who added this account to the SPI, the possibility that you are merely a sloppy reader or some naive newcomer must of necessity be excluded, leaving behind only the truth of your deliberate attempt to obfuscate matters. " Several articles state repeatedly that mistakes are often made by administrators and the software used by them." Cites please? In any case my recollection is that they merely state that mistakes are possible, as they are with any combination of humans and technology, not frequent. "I suggest Wikipedia administrators consider contacting users who have been suspected of any wrongdoing before punishments are enacted" Not with chronic, self-admitted sockpuppeteers, and you know this. "I formally request contact with a higher-ranking member of this website as I am neither convinced nor happy with either of the administrators answers or attitudes when dealing with an entirely innocent individual (myself)." Well, you're free to email the Ban Appeals subcommittee, even if it has not gotten to that point yet. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (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.
MorganConneely (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Daniel, I must say I am disappointed and surprised by your odd response. I am conversing in good faith, the three of you are not, and obviously do not believe that I am. Please attempt to view this from my point of view. I am attempting to be concise, but there are many unanswered questions. Guilty until proven innocent, prevent me from accessing material I need to defend my innocence, a smart move on your part I'd say, very moral. I trust my repeated unblock requests are perfectly reasonable, so a block on my talk page would be unreasonable in the eyes of many, though I predict this is what you will enforce to dodge my issues/shut me up. Why would I put myself through this much effort for an unblock? I notice that you can unblock my account for a certain period of time as a trail run, perhaps this would be a fair choice? So far this experience is worse than Youtube comments in terms of heartfelt, reasoned debate (if you are aware of the cesspool that is the comment section of that website). Please answer these questions for me, because as far as I can see, you along with Yunshui and Anthony are disregarding points which are in my favour. I have no interest in the programming of Checkuser etc, just a brief explanation of the edit I have made which has caused this. Is it at all possible to have been a simple mistake? If you say not, how long can I expect this block for. If I had knowingly committed the offences, as a fellows Masters student, do you not think I'd have covered my tracks better, deleted more content, etc? The average user makes edits immediately upon joining as that is the reason they have joined, to improve an article by adding or updating in good faith, fact, thus no confusion whatsoever as to my five edits. Was Bahooka's reasoning for his unhappiness with my five edits reasonable? Yes, mistakes are possible, thank you for correcting me. If administrators are confused by repeating a single fact, I apologise. Treating me with contempt, passive-aggression and the use of profanity aids my defense, and quite frankly comes across as immature. Why is it posted under March 10, another mistake? Sloppy reader? Perhaps I am making my points clear. Chronic? Self-admitted? This is the first Wiki account I have ever created, and I have not admitted I am guilty. If your software is so conclusive, why can you not confirm this? Can't say I knew what a sockpuppet was until I was incorrectly blocked, as I am a infrequent user of Wikipedia (I recommend more mature and jargon-free terms that new users to Wikipedia will understand immediately and are informed of upon joining, it would save you time I'm sure). I shall certainly contact the subcommittee, this contact log gives a good indication of mistreatment, bullying, abuse of power, dodging and malcontent of administrators (to express my opinions at the present moment). If you can answer all of these questions to an standard that I, along with the majority of new users, would find reasonable and acceptable, I will no longer debate this matter. I pity that I cannot have a fair discussion with supposedly mature members of society.
Decline reason:
Edit patterns along with technical evidence for checkuser trumps a long-winded wikilawyering plea. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:14, 8 April 2014 (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.
MorganConneely (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Long-winded wikilaywering? Your response shows you did not even have the courtesy to read my points, and/or are intimidated by their validity. "Wikilawyering" is a joke, nothing more than a transparent attempt to ignore me. I am deeply sorry you see my truthful concerns with such contempt. I hope you don't mind if I do the same. I see my attempt to remedy the situation and even request for a timeframe the block will be lifted is ignored, I guess my discussion on this page is treated as in "bad faith", eh? Screaming "the evidence is there" to me does not it any way prove to myself that I have done anything you consider wrong. I actual find it amusing the level of immaturity being displayed by other users granted certain privileges, does it give you all a rush? You obviously think that you are all so much more intelligent than myself and are overall better people. Opinionated in the extreme. Well, I can't really add more other than to say you have pushed away a honest, knowledgeable, innocent editor and I hope you are all quite pleased with yourselves. It's only a website membership after all!
Decline reason:
This is not an unblock request, it's a rant. As such, it does not meet the requirements set out in WP:GAB DP 18:01, 11 April 2014 (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.
