User talk:Decuw

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Decuw, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 06:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Jennifer Rattray. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:03, 27 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

i have been unjustly accused of sockpuppetry...am a good wikiuser

Decline reason:

No you haven't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think that JamesBWatson constitute appropriate administrative reasons for censorship under the rules. Locks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. I am appealing the denial on the basis of a lack of reasons or logic provided in both the case of the lock and the refusal of the appeal. Surely a lock requires reason and evidence not a need to be punitive on the basis of wiki-fifedom?

Decline reason:

There are roughly 30 socks associated with this account, many of them checkuser verified. This block prevents further disruptive editing until you can convince someone that you will cease the duplicitous behavior. Kuru (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (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.

you have basically given me a Wiki death sentence based on the fact that a team of separate people wanted to set the record straight on one or two pages. Must I be silenced forever because some people think that the person whose page I was editing (with citations!) is a folk hero? I thought this was supposed to be a marketplace of ideas? Further, most of those socks are not me, and just because checkuser found an IP address or two in common - I have explained this. There was several of us living in this house all involved on the UW wiki project. How long must I remain in purgatory? Surely I am not the first wiki editor to work in a collective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decuw (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 April 2014‎

The evidence of sockpuppetry does not depend only on the fact that "checkuser found an IP address or two in common". I have examined the behavioural evidence very carefully, and I am totally convinced that this account has been used by a person who has also used several other accounts. And no, Wikipedia is not "supposed to be a marketplace of ideas". Assuming you mean that it is a place for different people to put forward their own original ideas, then Wikipedia policy is that it is nothing of the sort: it is merely a convenient reference point for holding records of information which is already established and documented. original ideas are unacceptable. I also note with interest that you say "most of those socks are not me", which seems to be an implicit admission that some of them are. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you really can't find any reasons to unblock, don't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and have inadvertently provided further evidence in support of the socking allegations, I have revoked your talk page access. You will have to request unblock through email from now on. Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]