User talk:Dr.Greyhawk

Please visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historylover4 very soon. Zero^talk 06:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Shrike (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for being a sockpuppet?

@Ivanvector How can you block me for being a "sockpuppet" of someone who I am not, some ancient user from 5 years ago? Did you verify my IP/location? I'm going to need a full explanation for this. I'm also going to call @Zero0000 as a witness. I've only had an account here for a few days and I'm already witnessing some pretty bad malpractice from more than one admin.

In fact, let's sum up this injustice: I'm a relatively new user who is not a sockpuppet of anyone, tried to fix an article by removing a factually incorrect statement and by removing opinion and commentary to declutter and make an article more neutral. I somehow get banned for being a sockpuppet while the person who accused me is clearly sabotaging the information in the exact same article, pushing a point of view with conjecture, opinions, commentary, while removing results from actual objective scientific studies and even reverting erroneous statements that are not even supported by his own unreliable sources yet he remains unpunished. I can't even make this look worse than it already is. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been wrongly blocked for being a sockpuppet of another user from over 5 years ago who I have no connection with at all. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

request doesn't adequately (or at all) explain why the block is no longer necessecary Amortias (T)(C) 14:37, 24 February 2018 (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.

Reviewing admin: I'm very confident in this investigation. If my feedback is needed I would prefer to be contacted by email for this case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What investigation? You didn't do any investigation otherwise you would have already explained how you came to your conclusion. Also, after going through HistoryLover4's talk history, one of the first things you should have noticed is that he never puts a space between his comment and his signature while I always put a space; right away that is an indication that he is a different person. Also, after looking at his history, that user has contributed to a massive amount of articles, so just because I happened to edit one of those articles by adding something that was remotely in the same essence to what he added over 5 years ago, somehow you just assume that I'm the same person, taking the word of another user who is clearly contributing misleading statements and pushing POV in the same article. HistoryLover4 actually edited very little on that page to begin with this was literally the closest edit he made to what I did. It's still so ridiculous how you can connect me with a user from 5 years ago for making trivial and necessary changes to an article. So from now on any user that falls into the trap of fixing that obviously problematic article will be banned for being a sockpuppet of HistoryLover4 right? Is that the loophole you are using to protect your friend Tritomex along with the false narrative in the article? That's what it's starting to look like. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume administrators are acting in good faith unless there is much stronger evidence to the contrary. Zero^talk 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit from today, I swear you need to ban these blatant sabotagers, the motive is so evident. They vandalize pages, remove information they don't like in a counter-productive fashion and then accuse other innocent users of being sockpuppets. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1, so what's the deal with this review? I'm still blocked for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Where is the conclusion? Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Throuhg New Page Patrol I patrol recently created pages, your userpage showed up in a queue with hundreds of others, and as nothing was wrong it, I marked it as reviewed. I am not an admin nor am I involved in your block or unblock process. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales Within 14 days of creating my first ever Wikipedia account, I was falsely accused and banned for being a "sockpuppet" of another ancient user from over 5 years ago that I have absolutely no connection with simply because I made some trivial and necessary fixes to an article that this other blocked user edited at some point in time over 5 years ago. This is absolutely ridiculous in itself but it's even more despicable considering the fact that the person who accused me was himself vandalizing that article and likely other articles by intentionally injecting erroneous information, even according to his own sources, and clearly pushing a POV while edit warring. Even though this was easily demonstrated, an admin ruled that there was no violation on his part. A week later and I'm still blocked for no valid reason despite making an unblock request while the accuser is still freely vandalizing pages at this time. What an abhorrent experience on Wikipedia so far, there's no way that this is acceptable moderation on the part of the involved admins. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias Denial of unblock request doesn't adequately (or at all) explain why the block is still necessary. Tell me, what am I supposed to do when I get blocked for being accused of being a "sockpuppet" of someone who am I am not? There was literally no evidence to block me in the first place. Do I really need to start changing my IP to get another account to bypass a fucking unjust block by shitty admins, because I can easily do that. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]