User talk:Rachelksilber

Nomination of Adrian Lang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adrian Lang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Lang until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Agtx (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachelksilber. 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. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, 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.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, every account that was suspected of being a sockpuppet has been indefintely blocked, and their comments removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Lang- I've kept your comments though. When your block ends, feel free to contribute more to the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your suspicions but I really have not created any other accounts. I absolutely acknowledge that I know (personally) one of the other contributors to the deletion discussion (my colleague, hence the same IP address) but never solicited any responses to the article and did not know that there was even a discussion. I noticed the deletion today and tried to edit to provide more secondary sources. Please consider unblocking me- and in any case- I hope (again) that this will not colour the decision to keep the original article. I certainly did not intend to cause any problems.Rachelksilber (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Truly no intent to partake in sock puppetry. If multiple users did protest the deletion, they did so of their own accord but would share the same IP address as me if they work at the same location. Any other contributors would also have been in a similar location to me since Ms. Lang is most well-known in Toronto, where I am based. Please consider unblocking me

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that the record is quite clear. At the very least, you have crossed into what has the ugly name "meatpuppetry" when you either created or recruited other accounts from your workplace to influence the consensus decision making process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Lang. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 11 May 2015 (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.

.