User talk:ConsciousKipper

July 2013

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry but this accusation simply is not true. I am honest about who and what I am. I am a member of the UK Independence Party (hence the name Conscious Kipper, Kipper being a nickname for UKIP supporters), so I have been very open about that. I have recently taken early semi-retirement which leaves me with long periods where I can do what I please. I had taken to editing the politics section and have been working with User:Pilchard on sorting out these council elections articles so that they all have a similar layout et cetera. I think most would agree that I have put a lot of hard work into some of these articles, especially ones that had been totally ignored such as articles for the Isle of Anglesey County Council election, 2013 Isle of Wight. Please note that UKIP did not win a single seat in Anglesey and with only 2seats, they can't claim to have done well on the Isle of Wight either, so I really do feel that I have been a neutral editor and have paid the most attention to the articles that needed it. As far as the cliff-edge argument goes, this was something that I 1st saw User:Bondegezou use, not sheffno1gunner on one of the European elections pages. I also reject the accusation of adding UKIP to info boxes where they have no place; indeed it was me that removed UKIP from the info box of the Isle of Wight and also in one or 2 other instances. I resent being called a sock-puppet. Do you think that User: Pilchard is also a sock puppet for taking an interest in the same articles. I am an honest person and have edited honestly. I am concerned that the reversal of some of my edits has reduced the quality of some of the articles, on the Isle of Wight elections page the table showing the full results with total votes, gains and losses and everything has been removed, I can not understand why a senior editor would remove well sourced material. Do we care about getting articles right and being honest or are editors here to throw false accusations at those editors whom they disagree with. I really feel I am being unfairly treated here, especially given the work I have done for the encyclopedia, especially the pain staking filling in of data from the sources. It seems that if any editor openly shows support for UKIP, they get accused of being this sheffno1gunner person. Meanwhile others with other political views (which are openly contrary to UKIP's) are aloud to write paragraphs in articles saying what they like, provided they source it. I am careful to check sources before elaborating and I live up to my name ConsciousKipper, I follow procedure but I get treated like this. What can I possibly say or do to make you see beyond your own prejudices? I am not sheffno1gunner, but yes I clearly have an interest in the same articles that editor had interest in because I clearly have similar political views. Many of the people who support UKIP will have an interest in these pages as well as pages such as Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Notice how I have only edited that page once maybe twice. If you look at sheffno1gunner, they were once a regular editor of such a page as were a number of IPs so our editing patterns do not match as well as you suggest. I hope that you see sense and let me continue improving the council election articles (my main area of interest) ConsciousKipper (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted below this was based on a checkuser, so only someone with that authority can properly consider the basis for this block. And please, try to avoid the wall o' text approach to any future unblock requests you may make. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2013 (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.

I hope that you are aware that this block was made because of a CheckUser scan, which means it would have detected that you share the same IP address as Sheffno1gunner. — Richard BB 10:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, you mean that this block was made from an IP that has also been accused of being sheffno1gunner. I originally edited from an IP, someone once accused me of potentially being Sheffno1gunner (I believe it was Sportsandpolitics, they then did a location check and found that we were in different places. Therefrore Stradivarious did not have grounds to block me. I was the only one who had access to my IP so I felt it ok for me to use that. I since bowed to pressure, realizing you get accusations thrown at you when you edit as an IP and I therefore set up this account with a frank and honest title. It seems that since that time my IP address has indeed been blocked for the same accusation. This is not a case of me editing from the same address as sheffno1gunner, it is a case of me editing from an address that is accused of being sheffno1gunner. Although it seems it doesn't matter where you are in the country, if you show any support for UKIP you must be sheffno1gunner. ConsciousKipper (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)