User talk:Welshboyau11

Welcome!

Hello, Welshboyau11, 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)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D. Thanks for that.Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welshboyau11, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Welshboyau11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there!

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Note that it is your apparent failure to adhere to policies which I've raised here - this isn't a place to discuss content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion on the issue, I see that your new so I suggest you note WP:CANVASS Gnan garra 08:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

I have tried to disengage from the debate about the Australian Greens and my proposed changes. I will edit in other areas now. I am not going to get involved with or speak too Timeshift. I note he is following me and having a shot at me - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Country_Liberal_Party#Proposed_change_to_infobox. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I was just looking at that. --Pete (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might want to have a quick look at

I'm not sure if you read my comment following my vote (not that it was entirely coherent, lack of sleep has been doing that to me lately). You might be getting a bit mixed up in some of the terminology being thrown around in the ANI. To avoid mucking up any description, here is the difference between a topic ban and a community ban. Although the two sanctions use the word ban and are enacted only after community discussion, they are vastly different to each other. Blackmane (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I'm of the opinion that you do need to be topic-banned out of the subject. I don't understand at all what your intellectual opponent was on about with the "not a left wing party" reasoning, but your recent nominations of articles on provincial-level Aussie Green Parties I disagree with strongly and it seems that both you and perhaps he are grinding some sort of contemporary political axe. So pay your penance, write about something else for a while. There is a vast amount of work to be done on Australian labour history, Welsh labour history, or what have you. Grab a couple books from the library and get busy! All the best to you, really. Just understand — this is for the best of the project. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Carrite said above and want to add that you should take the offer of mentorship he made on ANI very seriously. You have a lot to offer the project and I would hate for you to get frustrated and leave. Both Carrite and I agree with the changes you wanted to make to the infobox. It can take a while to figure out the balance of assertiveness and cooperation that's required here. The problem with getting into such a heated argument is that now we are spending time dealing with the personality clashes instead of the actual article issue at hand. Whatever happens, I wish you the best of luck. Sperril (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add my recurring thought that the real problem here is Infoboxes, which encourage (simple?) people to try to represent complex matters simplistically in just one or two words. Far too shallow a goal for this encyclopaedia while it aims to be a quality publication. It can never be accurate and meaningful. And, in that context, I would still argue that trying to place all the world's political parties somewhere on a simple (and simplistic!) linear continuum is just plain silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

some thoughts

In the ANI thread Euryalus made an observation about your opposing the proposal, I agree with that. I also recognise that its never easy to know when to let a discussion go even for the most experienced of editors. So now we(both community and you) need to deal what happens next. What I think you can do is accept the offer of mentorship that was put forth in the discussion, agree to work on other subjects while learning and let this one go. To do this talk with your mentor, together put forth a proposal most of the editors that expressed an opinion realise that honest attempts done willingly are more successful then forced remedies, they also remember that new editors sometimes need space and time to learn. The choice on which way you go forward is yours, how you get there may not be. Gnan garra 03:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Lear's Fool 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How gutless can one get? Accusing me of being a sockpuppet whilst blocked so I can't defend myself against these lies and personal attacks. This is malicious and motivated by evil intentions. Shame on you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even care about being civil anymore. To attemp to link me to some other accounts whilst I am blocked and cannot respond as you would have seen when you edited this page is low. How about someone unblock me so I can respond to these malicious and vexatious claims?Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, "shame on you" is how you finished your last unsavoury e-mail to me a year ago. If you've anything to say to defend yourself, post it here. I'm sure someone will copy it to the appropriate forum. -- Lear's Fool 16:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? I've never emailed you before, crazy man. Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right about now - at 2:30 AM - might be a good time to roll over, have a snooze, wake up refreshed. Chucking allegations around isn't helping you any. Other admins will check here for any pertinent input, if you have any. Looking at the sock puppet case, it looks to me like something that should be investigated. If you are misleading others, it doesn't look good to accuse them of lying, hey? --Pete (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete - honestly I am not misleading anyone. Please believe me. I am just sick of these false accusations everyday. Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Response

On the first day I edited on this Encylopedia, Timeshift accused me of being a sockpuppet then a meatpuppet of IP 131.217.255.209, which continues editing to this day: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.217.255.209. The IP is based at the University of Tasmania: http://www.ipf1.com/info/131.217.255.209.html. As I said at the time 'That user has edited pages such as Brooks High School (Launceston, Tasmania - I was born in London and grew up in North Wales and now live in Sydney. I have never been to Launceston Tasmania and until to day hadn't heard of it. The user has also edited Laches (equity), India - United States relations, Morality and religion, Piaget's theory of cognitive development and Calle 13 (band). I don't know a single thing about any of these subjects. I don't give two hoots.' I have subsequently been accused of being a puppet of 'Watchover/Stravin' Now to address each specific claim: 1. As far as I can tell, both have edited from Telsta IP addresses in the Sydney area. I do live in Australia's largest city of Sydney, as do 5 million others. 2. Username similarities. Yes, their are slight similarities. But if I really was Enidblyton11, why would I return with such an obvious name? Quite simply, when I created my account I had no idea I was going to be accused of being a puppet of three different editors in different places around the world 3. Similarities in unblock request. I am a new editor. I did contribute. What's the controversy? I don't go around checking every banned editor to ensure my comments are not like theirs 4. Finally, there is the same rapid progression from starting to edit to a fully-fledged dispute on an Australian Politics page and a dispute with User:Timeshift9 I can't help the dispute with Timeshift9 but I have edited other articles. User Enid11 tried to get 'far-left' added without sources to the Greens whilst I tried to get left-wing added with sources. I didn't try to get Timeshifts page deleted as an attack (that's a lie) but because it breached WP:NOTBLOG, WP:UPNOT, WP:SOAP and others. I am telling the truth. I am not misleading anyone. This seems malicious and based upon a desire to 'get' me for anything. Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at Enid's contributions, they are nothing like mine. They are about Enid Blyton books, schools and even Aquaphilia (fetish) Welshboyau11 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone post this on the page - gutless behaviour from one certain accuser prevents me from doing so

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enfield London Borough Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of multiple accounts. From the evidence posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11 it's pretty clear that this is another sockpuppet account of Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs). I note in particular the edits concerning the Australian Greens article, the dispute with User:Timeshift9 (including a bad-faith attempt to have their user page deleted, and your over-the-top response to Timeshift9's suggestion several days ago that this was a sockpuppet account) and various posts which are highly unusual for genuinely new editors (for instance, refering to WP:SPI in one of your very first posts [1] and noting obscure policies [2] [3]). The similarity in IP addresses is also a significant piece of evidence in combination with the behavioral evidence. I note also your unwillingness to drop the stick and move on despite myself and other admins having advised you to do so; aside from this being characteristic of Enidblyton11's accounts, the above personal attacks on various editors would be sufficient, in isolation of anything else, to lead to an indefinite block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Appeal

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).

Welshboyau11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a genuine case of mistaken identity. The edits at Australian Greens were totally different. The evidence is that Enid tried to add 'Far-left' and 'Socialism' without sources, and did not take it to the talk page. I did both. In releation to the dispute with Timeshift, the very first time I edited, he simply wrote: WP:SOCKPUPPET http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_Party_of_Australia&oldid=509025257#Seeking_consensus_-_ideology This is how I knew about WP:SPI obviously - he refered my to it! User contributions and behaviour are quite different. I am not Enid. I can only say that beacause that's the truth. In regards to the Username similarities, I tried to register under another name, welshboy I think, but that was rejected. I knew a little about the site (or a lot) because I edited and have been a user of the site for a while under http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:144.136.97.19 IP 144.136.97.19 - I note a different IP to enid's. Please take a look at WP:ECA, WP:FIRSTEDIT, WP:BRANDNEW and WP:QUICKSOCK. I am not a sock of anyone Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence on other Enidblyton11 accounts is Stale, and thus not available for comparison to your account. However, the IP address you state is yours is in the same range as one that more-or-less confessed to being Enidblyton11: [4]. Assuming that 144.136.97.19 is in fact your IP address, that puts you in the same geographic area and on the same ISP, making a relation between your accounts at least possible. When combined with all of the behavioral evidence noted above, this makes a relation much more likely, and behavioral evidence in many cases trumps technical evidence anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (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.

If people want a lifetime ban, I would request a proper investigation with a checkuser, as apparently is normal practice. That's only fair and decent. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that do to a shocking unfortuneate coincidence, all my work has been spitefully deleted and my reputation has been destroyed. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a "shocking unfortuneate coincidence": the deletion of the pages you created by other admins is standard practice for dealing with block evaders, especially those who keep coming back and acting disruptively. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is the link between me and enid is a shocking and unfortuante coincidence. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, this is one of the IPs i suspect him of using

See contribs. Now attempting to edit again. Helen of Troy last night. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely to me. That IP address is registered to the University of Tasmania, so unless he's been moving between Sydney and Hobart quite a bit in the last few weeks, they're probably different editors. The editing behaviour looks different to me as well. -- Lear's Fool 23:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who uses this IP and made some Liberal Party edits. The IP is shared, I did not make all the edits from this IP. This user and I are not the same person and I request Timeshift9 stop provoking arguments about this. No IP/hostname within this namespace (at least 131.217.*.*) is publicly accessible and all usage of the IP is monitored by ITR here. Constantly being told I am some random person is not really very cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

As with your other accounts, I've removed your ability to edit this talkpage. The standard offer is available as it has always been, but you must contact an administrator and ask for a review of your situation before you return to editing. -- Lear's Fool 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]