User talk:DIZwikwiki

Welcome to my talk page

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkDavidson222, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

== MichaelZeng7 or other users made comments on a allegation i am a Suspected sockpuppets. respectfully, i believe the nominating parties are emotionally reacting and have abused the wiki guidelines in retaliation our my suggestions to KEEP some articles for creation you personally do not like. I do not understand why you felt to bring it on themselves without solid grounds to personally investigate my account, it is simply FISHING FOR revenge. Also the community should be aware i fall under Legitimate Uses.

I have further contacted the local Ombudsman commission regarding this behavior and I am currently pondering communication with the journalist who have written multiple stories with solid investigation skills and sources regarding abusive users, which I am being wrongfully attacked. NOTE this is not intended to apply pressure, it's simply to inform wiki editors that become wrongful bullies that are seeking retaliation and the fact i am being a wrongful victim by by a wiki editor. I have provided a couple of articles by other journalist related of commonly known trollers on wiki please see ie.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

and

http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html simply this type of behavior is wrong this is a clear indication relations

I believe it's possible the fishing attack on this account could have made an error in judgement and in good faith may will apologize for such attack and do their part to fixing the unnecessary attack on my account DIZwikwiki (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DIZwikiwiki. Thank you for your response. Please take notice that I have not expressed any opinion regarding deletion at the AfD in question. What I noticed was that there are at least 5 accounts, including this one, whose first edits were to participate in the deletion discussion. 4 of them operated within an hour. This behavior is highly indicative of possible sock puppetry, so I hope you'll understand my suspicion. Please do not take this personally. We are here to build an online encyclopedia, not to battle it out with other users. Using multiple accounts to distort consensus is not in the interest of this encyclopedia. If you have not been using multiple accounts in a manner contrary to Wikipedia's goals, then remain calm. That will almost always be the conclusion we reach. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

== MichaelZeng7, i do not take is personally. you are fishing and generalizing my account, as far am i'm concern that's the "if it walks like a duct, it's a duck would cover the basis". you blanketed my "keep" with other users. It is simple negligence. Just because i comment on account that is an AfD doesn't mean i'm a sock puppet. multiple users can comment and anytime. you intentionally with malice flagged my account. this isn't a battleground nor intended to be, it's inappropriate of to stake such claim, i also went as far to clarify such. it's a fact you sided without caution for gross negligence, which in my opinion is a serious matter. It's also fishing like behavior. i'm now more than ever concerned about your abusive behavior and abusing the interest of this encyclopedia as i stated in which articles. User's acting in the manor that you have exhibited then further abusing with knowledge is troublesome. i recommend you read the points of these articles http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

and

http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html simply this type of behavior is wrong this is a clear indication relations

furthermore, it's clear my account is not interested in one particular article creation or user, therefor your abuse of the sock puppeting theory is without merit. Yes, i am in fact pondering what should be done about user's like yourself that abuses the system with negligence, then after being notified of such improper behavior by all appearances does nothing to rectify his actions and attempts to justify those would lead to the valid conclusion of gross negligence. users acting with malice like are yourself are vandalizing and harassing users of good faith like myself, you have wrongfully attacked my character and account without real grounds by generalizing and lumping me to into your improper theory and decision to abuse of the system. Now, I have to spend countless time filing a rebuttal, which on your part simply isn't nice, not to mention you don't care my time is wasted as a direct result of you.DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have not abused multiple accounts, I truly am sorry for wasting your time. I'm no longer convinced you are a duck, and I'm very sorry I called you that. A CheckUser will shortly conduct a check to see if a case of sockpuppetry occured, or not. I just wanted to say that I didn't maliciously flag your account because I wanted to target you specifically; I was convinced that you were a sock puppet because the behavior of other accounts suggested it. Looking at your contributions, I noticed one of the first edits you made were to several AfDs. Deletion discussions aren't usually areas where users begin their editing. Again, I withdraw my claim that you are connected to the other accounts because of WP:DUCK, and I eagerly await for a CheckUser to remove all doubt. Best, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

== MichaelZeng7, I appreciate your apology and believe you will use more caution prior to flagging but it doesn't help that i still have to spend countless man hours to state my case because of the CheckuUser claim you filed. It's an appeal like claim without defending. it's a very cumbersome process. BTW, i dont' have peronsal interest in any of the article subjects i commented on, i was simply stating my opinion on that article was worthy of a keep. I felt it's not like a tally anyway. I'm hopeful your actions don't scare off other users because exclusionist of sorts have lead to many negative articles by creditable journalist in regards to wiki users.DIZwikwiki (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that there are no hard feelings. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify something: I never retracted my suspicion that you were possibly a sockpuppet. I was no longer convinced that you passed the WP:DUCK test. A CheckUser indicated your account is connected to 2 others. The reason I opened the sockpuppetry investigation was because the behavioral evidence strongly suggested it, not because of the fact that you voted "keep". The second edit you made outside your own userspace was to the AfD in question. This was a red flag, since the behavior of other users editing the AfD strongly indicated them as sockpuppets, (and they were confirmed to be sockpuppets by a CheckUser). I submit that one could reasonably suspect your account was a sock puppet too. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi DIZwikwiki, I'm hesitant to modify the block at this point as I don't have access to the technical findings. But I can talk with the checkuser who investigated the case, User:Tiptoety, and see if your explanation matches the data they found. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing that I can see provides convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, but I don't have access to the checkuser information, so I can't rule it out. However, I thought it would be best for you to be aware that the text you have posted above comes close to persuading me to keep you indefinitely blocked, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the sockpuppet case, for making personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, and veiled threats. If you go round assuming that anyone who does anything you don't agree with is acting in bad faith, you will find it difficult to fit into Wikipedia. Even if (as seems to me quite possible) the sockpuppet allegation is mistaken, it is just that: mistaken. There certainly were reasons for raising the possibility, and I see absolutely no grounds whatever for your unsubstantiated claim that it was done for malicious reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• James, respectfully the the reason for a checkuser was invalid and improper and unjustified. The reason the user expressed was he thought i was a sock puppet he did stated it was related to an article in deletion he thought i was working in conjunction as a sock puppet behavior, I was not, my editing record speaks for itself. I simply left for as a "keep" for the purposed article and flagged. The user MichaelZeng7 did admit he was being overzealous (later retracted after User:Mark Arsten wrote on the account although my valid points remain) MichaelZeng7 admitted he jumped to conclusions after doing his research to verify by my edit history i had no connection to the article or the ip of the article creation.

I also was very nice expressing my disappointment with the users MichaelZeng7 allegation, as false allegations do lead to a frustration of an experience related to appeal process. I also explained that was the same belief expressed by former users on http://wikipediocracy.com about being bullied -

I further explained i work for a company that has multiple users (some who might also have wiki accounts but no direct relationship, are independent of them, and we have a code of ethics regarding integrity, we don't even get the same assignments and some don't even like each other so the collusion agreement would be invalid. i further explained these parties work to uncover editors on wiki who are abusive. this was not threatening behavior, it's a fact and the vary fact I'm independent of them should mean something, they take the responsibility of their stories, we don't share credit or collaborate, that would be uncommon. I am of the opinion users now might try to out me or blacklisted my account because my possible affiliation with users who have outed abusive wiki editors. that behavior would be a violation of wiki policy itself. I never stated this in a bully like manner. I was non-threatening and friendly and if you review my comments you can see the respectful nature and tone, the possibility of a overly defensive counter position would raise valid suspicion and validate my point regarding attempting to blacklist my account.i just because I cited articles by other respected journalist and provided links of their work regarding the very behavior of abusive wiki users does not mean i'm a bully or threatening. also I stated i was nice not bully, stated my position was not offend or threat another user and was respectful with a fair and balanced point of view within the wiki terms.

I further stated sometimes i do in fact share an ip (but not always, as large, mid size, and small independent journalist do) but for grounds of confidentiality I should be protected., journalist, profiled parties do have a legitimate reason to keep the account in could standing. the vary reasons of privacy i stated are valid, the reasons of security are valid. if the facts are reviewed with an open mind you can simply see my account should be reopened in good standingDIZwikwiki (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, there were certainly reasonable grounds for the CheckUser investigation. Almost all of the other confirmed sockpuppets who participated in the AfD had prior edits before making a keep !vote. Your fifth edit to Wikipedia was to participate the AfD in question. That raises the suspicion that your account might have been created recently for the purpose of votestacking the AfD. I did jump to the conclusion that all of these users must be sockpuppets due to their behavior, but I later took a step back after an admin made a CheckUser request. I never withdrew my suspicion of possible sock puppetry.

Also, no one here is trying to out you. It's very possible that your actions have nothing to do with the actions of the other accounts because you've edited from your workplace. Now, when you first replied to my SPI notification, you threatened to contact a journalist to claim you've been wrongfully attacked, and that I abused Wikipedia guidelines. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that I must be trying to attack you, think about the reasons I raised the suspicion. There were indeed other sock puppets who edited the AfD, and you are a relatively new user whose first edits were to the same AfD. I must have mistakenly identified you as a sockpuppet within that other ring of sockpuppets. Obviously, I was mistaken as a CheckUser concluded your account has no relation to that particular ring of sockpuppets. However, the CheckUser did conclude that your account was connected to 2 others, which was probably also a good faith mistake, as your workplace probably has a single IP address, and the other accounts would be using it. It would look to a person trying to gain technical evidence that a single person was possibly creating multiple accounts from the same network. We are currently waiting for a comment from the Checkuser who investigated your case to see if your explanation fits with their findings. Respectfully, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Mark I am not a sock puppet, did you review the notes of this user page? I have not exhibited any behavior of a sock puppet. I work for an investigative journalism company. Some have been assigned to investigate abuse wiki exclusionist see similar articles. I am not one of those parties. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ and http://wildhunt.org/2013/05/anti-pagan-wikipedia-editor-outed-by-salon-com.html simply this type of behavior is wrong this is a clear indication relations my account is individualized and not related to my co-workers, we do not share the opinions and at times are competitors. my conduct has been great not to mention I did and do not work in relation or in collusion with any of my contemporaries. We are independent of each other. "WP:SHARE" I am not a sock puppet, meat puppet, or a duck. i'm a real person. I got caught in the cross-hairs on a user who admittedly was a high school student and made a mistake in his findings being overzealous against users marking articles "keep" in the AfD and rescinded his complain. I had no relationship to the article itself, the user admitted he did not use caution, if you view my account history you can see my conduct has been proper. I have done nothing dishonest. I Agree to follow Wikipedia community customs. I have no issues with disclosing who i am or that my work ip is shared. DIZwikwiki (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Every single comment by the blocked editor has included some form of attack on others, and their possible reasons behind their actions - that alone is a violation of WP:AGF. I will AGF that you're telling the truth about multiple editors. However, based on my review, what appears to have happened is that multiple accounts - all of which share a common IP address - all !voted on the same AFD. There is absolutely NO acceptable reason for this, and calls of SOCK and MEAT are therefore very, very valid. Randomly new editors DO NOT SUDDENLY FIND an AFD and !vote on it - someone must have told them about it. So, if you actually know who the others are in your office with accounts, you must invoke your company ethics rules: advise them that in order to prevent the appearance of improper editing (ie "collusion" as you call it), none of your accounts from your business will be able to !vote in any Wikipedia discussion, and only 1 account from the company would be permitted to touch any article. By the way, if as you state, ANY of your colleagues are currently performing the "investigation" you note above, then I see absolutely NO reason to unblock this account whatsoever, as per WP:NLT. So, based on all the above, until there are assurances that these basic ethical and behavioural concepts are going to be adhered to, there's no valid reason to unblock at this time DP 11:26, 2 February 2014 (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.

Unblocked

Since placing the previous block, I've spoken with a couple checkusers about the technical evidence and it appears that this may have been a false positive. I've therefore unblocked this account. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)