User talk:Carpet9

Yes, I am out of here starting now.

checkuser

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trebor Rowntree. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question you posed on the checkuser page, as the person who posted the request, my main concern was to resolve the allegation that had been made concerning Trebor Rowntree which was becoming the focus of his request for adminship. I had no view one way or the other as far as you were concerned and you came up only as a link to the prior accounts which were shown to be distinct from Trebor's. I would not have requested the check if your account had been the only issue, and in fact, prior to yesterday do not believe I had crossed paths with either you or ForestH2. Newyorkbrad 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I was already sure that you were ForestH2. Were it not for suspicions about Trebor Rowntree (which apparently were false, though some evidence did point to the contrary), I would not have requested a checkuser. I did not mean to compare ForestH2 and yourself; however, the checkuser in question chose to mention that. In response to your other question, the problem is that there are quite legitimate uses for multiple accounts- I myself have at least four (my main account, a bot, a testing account, and a Signpost account). Not to mention the issues with dynamic IPs. Checkusers are requested when disruption has occurred- that's why I didn't bother checking you until I thought that you might be related to Trebor Rowntree (again, my apologies on that). Ral315 » 17:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply to your post on my talkpage. No reason you have to leave. Newyorkbrad 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of ForestH2

I was happy to allow you to continue to edit in good faith, even though checkusers have confirmed that you're a sockpuppet of ForestH2. However, your continued trolling, and denial that you're related makes it clear that you're not editing in good faith. You've been indefinitely blocked. Ral315 » 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? You refuse to take responsibility for your behavior. Carpet9 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin reviewer: Link: [1]

As to you, Newyorkbrad (paste on his talkpage, if I may), they were not obvious sockpuppets, just people randomly editing SpongeBob SquarePants articles. It's like you block anybody who's involved with SpongeBob SquarePants. Carpet9 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse him of blocking for no good reason? He has plenty. The similarities between you and ForestH2 are notable. Also, please give examples of him abusing blocking powers. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He knows I am ForestH2, but he has no right to be blocking people who I listed here. And blocking me with that one edit after he said he wouldn't? This is clearly abusing powers, and discussion or an arbitration case is needed. Carpet9 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~An arbtration case is unnecessary, but a checkuser request might be in order. Diez2 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Check that, there HAS been a checkuser query, and at least 7 socks have been confirmed. Um, first, WHY? Second, the blocking of sockpuppets should only take place if they are vandal socks and/or they are trying to avoid a block. I am leaning toward having this user remain as blocked, but its only a weak position. (I'm not an admin anyway) Diez2 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aribtration case would be against Ral for misusing his sysop powers. There has been a checkuser query but not on the specific users I mentioned. Carpet9 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that if this is a confirmed sock of ForestH2 (which, as you say is true), then this account should be blocked. However, I do disagree with the blocks of the unconfirmed socks by Ral. You should contest the blocks of those users. Diez2 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diez, if I ever get unblocked (I hope I do), then I do plan to contest the blocks of Ral by adding a notice to WP:ANI or if nobody refuses to hear this out, the Mediation Commitee, and then Arbitration Commitee. Thank you for your understanding and it would be appreactive if you actully posted to WP:ANI before I get unblocked. Carpet9 04:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that ForestH2 has a habit of tagging his own sockpuppets, and later denying that they're his. I didn't block them because he listed them, I blocked them because he brought my attention to them, and I agreed that they fit his pattern. SpongeBobBoy and MacintoshApple immediately created a bot account (something that Forest's socks had discussed, and that would not be a normal task for a new user). Reeler and Shipready "retired" from Wikipedia within a minute of each other, just a few days after creating their accounts, another thing that ForestH2's socks have done. MacintoshApple and Iswatch19 also "retired" on another day, within a minute of each other. I do not consider CheckUser necessary for something like that. Ral315 » 07:13, 21 February 2007 (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).

Carpet9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel this is the only way for and admin to hear me rant. I agree with you deciding not to unblock me. However, I feel immediate attention needs to be given to Ral315's misusing of sysop powers. I will not shut up until something is done. It's outreagous he blocked someone for no reason. As far as I am concerned I am now requesting and unblock to question Ral315's misusing of sysop powers. I feel after this, I can be blocked again.

Decline reason:

You're a sockpuppet as found by checkuser, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a battleground. --Core desat 04:08, 21 February 2007 (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.

But don't you care he has misused his sysop tools? Carpet9 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Carpet9! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 273 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Clay Sell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Carpet9! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clay Sell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clay Sell 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/Clay Sell 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. The-Pope (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblocked

sockpuppets of ForestH2

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of ForestH2 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.