User talk:Elanthia

Welcome!

Hello, Elanthia, 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:

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Enric Naval (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?

I've never heard of this DavidYork71 character and I'm certainly not his "sockpuppet". Hos is it possible to get blocked without prior notification in this way?

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).

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

Request reason:

I have no connexion with DavidYork71: I am an individual and, I hope, a constructive contributor. Please review and allow me to continue to contributing and to address any allegations made againast me.

Decline reason:

Judging by your edits, it's fairly clear that you're a sock. When a new user comes along and jumps almost instantly into in-depth wikipolitical issues that would hold only the interest of banned users, all while proceeding with an air of absolute confidence and trying to rally people to your cause, they're almost certainly sock or meat puppets. --slakr^\ talk / 01:14, 12 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not, and have never claimed to be, a new user. I previously edited under my real name which led to serious RL consequences which I am determined not to repeat. I repeat that I am not connected with DavidYork71, nor have I been disrputive, as my contribution record shows. Human rights aren't only of interest to banned users; I am not rallying anyone to my cause. I am willing to address these issues in the proper forum but it is not practical to do so by a sequence of block and unblock templates. Please unblock me and take me to SSI to clear this up, so that I can carry on contributing.

Decline reason:

Per comment and linked diff below. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2009 (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 admins, before reviewing this unblock request, please see, this edit, which confirms via checkuser that this user account is indeed a sockpuppet of DY71.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 13 May 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I appeal to the Arbitration Committee (draft on this page) and request an unblock limited to the pages necessary to effectively present my case.

Decline reason:

ArbCom members do not normally respond to unblock requests, but the do respond to email. Go to WP:ACC, pick an arbitrator with a friendly sounding name, and email them using the email address listed on that page. Use any email program you choose, even free throwaway accounts like those found at yahoo or gmail or hotmail. Explain why you think you should be unblocked. They can review your case and issue a response. Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:54, 14 May 2009 (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.

Block Appeal

I have emailed to ask the Arbitration Committee to take an appeal against this block, on two grounds:

Substance: I am in fact not DavidYork71, and have no connection with him
Process: This block represents an abuse of the SSI and Checkuser processes

Background

I am not, and have never claimed to be, a new user. In the past I edited under my real name and became the victim of unwarranted and serious Real Life harassment by another user. I am determined never to allow my on-wiki activities to be linked to my real identity again.

Behaviour

My edits under my new username have been constructive, my interactions with other editors polite and constructive [I call arbitrator Coren as witness here]. I have not taken any interest in the unpleasant obsessions which appear to characterise DY71 and I actually regard it as offensive to suggest that I share some of his opinions. I do happen to be interested in the relationship between the Wikipedia community and real-life issues such as legalities (my previous experiences no doubt being part of the reason for that).

It is quite absurd to suggest that these issues only interest banned users [again I call Coren as witness to the number of other users who participated in a discussion on his talk page on these allegedly recondite matters].

My "cause" is entirely represented by the sober statement which has now been deleted from my user page. I have not been "recruiting" to any greater extent than any other user who displays an infobox stating a political or philosophical position on their user page.

In summary, then, I assert that I have caused precisely zero disruption to the project; made a modestly positive contribution; and done nothing to suggest a relationship with a known vandal.

Checkuser

Checkuser evidence does not "confirm" real-life identity; it is not capable of doing so; and it is well-known not to be capable of doing so. It shows that users use similar or related IP addresses. The real-life connection requires interpretation, and that process is capable of error. I maintain, on the basis of the simple facts, that such a mis-interpretation has occurred. I gather that some 300 sockpuppets of DY71 have been identified: I suggest that an error rate of one-third of one percent is not only credible but even praiseworthy. It is unfortunate that in this case an error has clearly been made.

Process

I maintain that the process behind this block has been deeply flawed or possibly even abusive. On 10 May I found myself indefinitely blocked, merely on vague (and I suggest, inadequately evidenced because factually incorrect) suspicion of a connection with DY71. I had been given no opportunity to discuss the matter, no account of the charges against me, and no opportunity to give an explanation. This might have been acceptable in a case of blatant disruption but I repeat that this did not apply to me. On the same day I asked for an unblock and on the 12 May it was declined on the grounds that I was obviously someones sock without any further suggestion as to who that might be or what disruption I was alleged to have caused. I responded by asking for an SSI and an unblock sufficient to allow me to paticipate. That was declined as not being a proper reason, and that decline was then reverted, leaving me in limbo. On the 13th an SSI was indeed opened and closed again without my knowledge and without it having been possible for me to participate. At that SSI it was alleged that a Checkuser had already done and the apparent results discussed over IRC.

It is clear that this is a failure of process. To be blocked on unfounded suspicion, followed by an SSI which was clearly not designed to produce a balanced result, is IMHO abusive.

Possible Abuse of Checkuser

Checkuser is a sensitive and fallible tool. To carry out a checkuser to try to find evidence against a user when there is no evidence of disruption is an abuse. To carry out a Checkuser before rather than after an SSI is a potential abuse. I call on the Arbitration Committee to investigate, independently of my appeal, what the timeline of this Checkuser was, whether it was carried out in conformity with policy, whether it was carried out with due diligence, and whether there is any evidence of "fishing" directed against myself by any other user for personal reasons.