User talk:Duecareandattention

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Duecareandattention, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! EW_{_i}kist^Talk 23:48, 23 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not guilty of any of this behaviour:[T]he use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms:

  Creating new accounts to avoid detection
  Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP
  Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users
  Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust.

Please unblock

Decline reason:

Actually, that is what you pretty much did. Even if I assumed good faith and assumed that all 4 or so of you were actually different people, you most certainly violated that last rule you mentioned. –MuZemike 20:22, 25 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Are you refering to this: "Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust." I have never done this. I am not engaged in any dispute and would not do this if I were. If you will allow MuZemike, I think you are confusing this just quoted unacceptable behaviour with what we are: a number of people at one address using the same computer who share an interest in (contributing to similar or) the same topic!! No offence committed. Please reinstate my account in good order in good faith

Decline reason:

No. We are referring to different accounts repeatedly adding exactly the same edits after they have been reverted by other editors. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:35, 25 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am honestly completely ignorant of what you are refering to and I think the least you can do is supply some evidence for your statement, Anthony Bradbury et al. I have not once myself added "exactly the same edits after they have been reverted by other editors" and nobody I have spoken with here who holds and enjoys the use of their own account is any wiser either. As I say I am truly ignorant of this and since you say in this household there have been instances of "different accounts repeatedly adding exactly the same edits after they have been reverted by other editors" I would be grateful of the courtesy of at least one instance of any such activity by way of substantiating evidence among the many you claim have occurred.

Decline reason:

See the SPI if you want evidence. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Maybe I am missing something Daniel Case but I have checked SPI as you suggest and there is no evidence present of "different accounts repeatedly adding exactly the same edits after they have been reverted by other editors" or "exactly the same edits after they have been reverted by other editors" (Anthony Bradbury's claim). So what is this? Are people who have their own accounts, share the same computer and the same interests unable to contribute to the same article on Wiki? What is this? And actually, for the record, the "Sage of Stamford" is wrong. No one in this household holds that account. The evidence on SPI is that several individuals use their accounts individually from the same IP on the same topic- in what way is this not permitted/anti - Wiki? Please see clearly and unblock

Decline reason:

Declining this unblock only, as there is another one open below. Closedmouth (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2011 (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.

WP:ILLEGIT: Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles (...), closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics. (emphasis mine) decltype (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for this Decltype. This is clear. We are, as separate individuals, guilty of this in so far as we are closely connected but not that we necessarily have the same objectives, other than the broad objective of sharing -some- similar interests and have not declared as such for which I, with permission, on behalf of all apologize and confirm that we will at all times from now take the relevant care to declare. I hope this is acceptable to the Wiki community. Please unblock our accounts.

Decline reason:

I'm marking this as a decline to take you out of the category, but I'm not saying I'm unwilling to unblock you. I want to know exactly what your connection is (on- or off-Wikipedia) to the accounts listed at the SPI (and any others that haven't been discovered) and/or the person or people behind them. Start there, and then we can talk about unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 31 January 2011 (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.