User talk:Abhayakara/Archive 1

I didn't sockpuppet. It might have seemed that I did. Why?
- I did some edits without being logged in before I figured out how not to get logged out when idle for a fairly brief period. I tried to correct this so that people wouldn't think I was sockpuppeting, but didn't get every instance.
- I study at Diamond Mountain. The page I was editing that I am sure stimulated the controversy is my teacher's page. He is one of the principal teachers at Diamond Mountain, and I know that other students have edited his page while at Diamond Mountain, and their edits would have had the same goal: to correct the viewpoint pushing that's been going on that article for several years now.

At least one student, who probably also made edits from that netblock, was accused of sockpuppetry in the past, and didn't contest the accusation, so the accusation was upheld. It may have been correct--I don't know, because I don't know which student did it. What is clear though if you look back at it is that I was not accused of sockpuppetry at the time, probably because I sound different than the students who were accused, and I was editing from my former home in Tucson, so from a different netblock.

You can get some confirmation of where I've been editing from by doing a whois on the IP address I came from--it'll either be a comcast address--my home in Brattleboro--or a Valley Telecom address. Valley Telecom is the only ISP in Bowie, Arizona, and has a very small netblock.

You can confirm that the IP address in Brattleboro is my home by doing a DNS lookup on ksanti.fugue.com, and a whois on fugue.com, and looking at my user page, where I identify myself by name. Ksanti.fugue.com is my secondary name server, and is in the same /29 subnet as the address I do my editing from.

I wasn't pushing a viewpoint: today Jimmy Wales noticed the problem I attempted to correct with my teacher's article. Here is the edit I made that I think triggered the block, and the reason I gave for making it.
No explanation of block: I contacted User:YellowMonkey, the administrator who blocked me, asking what I did that led to the block and how I could correct it, and received no answer.
Conflict of interest: User:YellowMonkey, the administrator who blocked me, is participating in the debate that I think triggered the block. A person who is involved in the discussion should not be the person who chooses who participates in the discussion. I am not saying this was deliberate--the block occurred before YellowMonkey started participating in the debate. But in retrospect it seems kind of questionable.
Even though I didn't sockpuppet, I realize that my actions did trigger the response--that it wasn't capricious. I didn't follow good wikipedia etiquette or even have the right attitude about what I was doing. Doing the research to figure out why I was blocked and what I should do about it has been instructive. I hope my improved understanding will mean that I will step on fewer toes in the future, and hopefully won't make anyone wonder whether or not I ought to be blocked.

I tried to make this brief because it's boring, but if you are interested in more detail, visit the previous revisions of this page.

{{unblock|1=I didn't sockpuppet. I suspect evidence is weak, and that the underlying concern is viewpoint pushing (supporting detail on talk page). I was not viewpoint pushing--Jimmy Wales reviewed contested edit, noticed the same problem I did. Blocking administrator also involved in debate, seems like COI. Nevertheless, I came on too strong with edits to Michael Roach article: will try to be more low-key going forward. More on my talk page. Thanks for reading.}}

File:Blnguyen banana.JPG

You said "I tried to correct this so that people wouldn't think I was sockpuppeting, but didn't get every instance." Could you point me to an example of you trying to correct it, as this would be quite strong evidence that you didn't intend to sock. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the yellow monkey to comment on your request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here's an example. Abhayakara (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The blocking admin never bothered to even post a notice explaining the block. I'm willing to believe you that it was a mistake as you claim and that you will be able to avoid it in the future.

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1998472 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I don't know if User:Beeblebrox or User:Excirial will be reading this, but if you do, thanks for the unblock. Should you follow through and see what looks to you like me continuing to be insensitive, please don't hesitate to tell me so--I'm involved in an extremely uncomfortable discussion right now that I would rather not be in, and I don't know if I'm handling it appropriately (according to community norms) or not. If I'm not, I would very much like to hear that from you. It's on WP:BLPN, under the Michael Roach heading. Abhayakara (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roach

Nice job. I personally don't have any objection to your marking the issue resolved. I guess we'll have to wait and see about the other editors. Yworo (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]