User talk:GeneralPericles
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Sju hav (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
GeneralPericles (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I listed a bunch of evidence against my being a sockpuppet at the sockpuppet investigations page here. However, all the most important info from there has been copied to this page. After going through Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block and briefly looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sju_hav/Archive, I have decided to reorganize the evidence here to help best make my case. I am a new user, so if I do anything wrong or if I am not providing the right information, please set me on the right track. I am trying to work in good faith. Evidence Which Suggests I am not Sju hav * Based on the sockpuppet investigations page, Sju hav is presumed to be Norwegian. I am a natural-born American citizen and can easily prove this. * Additionally, Sju hav likes to edit the Norwegian wikipedia apparently (hence why he is presumably Norwegian?). I have not touched the Norwegian Wikipedia, ever. * Apparently the reason for suspicion was that I edited the Fall of Saigon page first, which Sju hav had previously used sockpuppets to edit extensively. However, my edits to that page were actually reverting changes made (likely) for political reasons around Black April (specifically, a user had changed Fall-->Liberation and added language about Vietnamese "collaborators" to describe the South Vietnamese). These diffs can be seen here (my first edit). It's worth noting that I just reverted the article to a previous state, which was easily found by checking previous diffs. I did not add any new content because my knowledge on the Fall of Saigon is extremely limited -- I simply made edits to a page that I thought needed edits. * My second edit was used as evidence by 4ing to show that I was an "experienced user." To be totally honest, I don't really see how this edit suggests that I have experience. I have lurked in the past and I am familiar with how to use Wikipedia and the MediaWiki platform generally. Also, I literally just ripped most of that from the Fall vs. Liberation debate on that talk page (NPOV and all that). * 4ing also stated that the edit had similar orthography to this edit by 20yardsaway. These are both very small edits, and 4ing correctly points out that we both used two hyphens prior to our signature. However, I don't think this is a terribly unique thing. However, I want to out an orthographic difference that I think is critical: 20yardsaway places his period after the quotation mark in that edit. (so that it appears: "...American evacuation".(Todd, p.366)). Even in that second edit on the talk page, I place my comma inside "Fall," as such. Furthermore, without knowledge that I would have to be writing this defense page, I later made an edit on the Love Land article which corrected that exact orthographic mistake. * As I stated on the past page, I made a few edits to Wikivoyage over a year ago. As an example, this edit which is for my hometown's page. This is the sort of information that Sju hav (to my limited knowledge) would have no interest in or knowledge of. More recently, I asked a question on the Vietnam talk page as I am planning a trip there. Use of the "GeneralPericles" Username on Other Sites I use this username across a variety of sites (mostly gaming accounts), and I can verify my identity on any one of those. A couple of examples: * My Steam account * My Nexus Mods account * I can't figure out to link to it, but it's my Origin account name, too. * As I mentioned on the other page, My WikiVoyage account Confirmed Email Address, Linked to Real-World Identity I realized I had not confirmed my email address prior to this posting, so I just confirmed it now. As an admin will be able to see, my email address contains my real, actual name. If need be, I can provide a link to my Facebook profile or also provide my university email address to verify my identity. Editing from university account If it does appear there is something funny with my IP activity, this is because I am at university and so I am editing on my university's connection. I can provide the name of this university (and my university email) to an admin if you need to confirm this with me further. Editing Intent I know that my edits appear somewhat random, and clearly the fact that I chose to make my first edit on the Fall of Saigon page is what led to this suspicion in the first place. As of now, most of my edits are focused on fixing minor errors I come across in articles. If you look at my small number of contributions here, that will be confirmed. Part of the reason I have not made more significant contributions is that I am still a college student so I don't feel like I have a significant enough expertise in anything to contribute substantively. However, as I am beginning to enter upper division classes in both physics and computer science, you will likely see me contributing to articles on those subjects in the future (assuming that I am unblocked). Actually probably not physics as much because I sort of feel like you need a PhD to really contribute there, but you get the idea. Thanks. I hope my cooperation will help undo this block.
Accept reason:
I will assume good faith, accept your evidence and unblock. Please see my comments below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: we actually can't see your email unless you email us. And the name in email itself doesn't mean anything. I can prolly register Barack.H.Obama@gmail.com or similar with a bunch of email providers. Steam appears to display users' previous public names, so this is the original account name. Still, the looks of you jumping into an article as if you've just edited it while this was your first edit ever is slightly suspicious, I admit. And looks similar to the modus operandi of Sju hav's previous sockpuppets. @Berean Hunter:, do you think there is a room for reevaluating this block? Max Semenik (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay so this is going to be a dumb question but how would I go about emailing you, then? Like I said, I can email you from a university account which cannot just be randomly created -- it is commonly used as evidence that I am enrolled as a student at that institution. And while I understand how that could look suspicious, I would also like to reiterate that the content of that edit was simply reverting changes that were very obviously wrong. When I went to view Fall of Saigon, it looked like this. The fact that the title of the article was "Fall of Saigon" but the first paragraph referred to it as the "Liberation" was extremely jarring, so I looked into it. I read through this very lengthy discussion on the use of "Fall" vs. "Liberation" and used that to address what looked like edit warring on the page. --GeneralPericles (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, re-reading your comment re-Steam: I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mouse over the arrow next to my name you should be able to see all of the screen names that account has used. In my case, it is just GeneralPericles.(Whoops, now understand that this is what you were saying. My bad.) My Steam account has existed for several years (proof: Civ 5 achievements dating to 2011), and I just edited the description the account description to include a hello to Wikipedia.- All right. I looked up Special:EmailUser and changed the email my account is associated with to my university email. I emailed both you (Max) and Berean Hunter with the email tool and disclosed my Facebook and LinkedIn profiles which you can verify are associated with that name and provide further proof that I am not Sju hav. Hopefully this helps. Thanks for your help, Max.
- You managed to wade into a contentious area that has been subject to significant sockpuppetry. A new editor that cites policies and guidelines knowledgeably such as consensus, edit warring and NPOV for their very first edits will usually raise the suspicions of most editors that you aren't new. To explain why your good edits might appear bad to experienced editors, sockmasters are known to use good hand and bad hand accounts to try to get what they want. Nonetheless, I'm accepting your explanations as truthful and unblocking you. Please accept my apology and I hope you will enjoy editing here. I will leave a welcome below with links that should help you get started.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)- @Berean Hunter: actually, I have spent at least an hour reading various policies and manuals before making my first anon edit so not entirely improbable =) Max Semenik (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- True. I recall charging ahead boldly, albeit unwittingly into a contentious area when I first started. I had to figure out what all those @*%$! TLAs meant on-the-fly.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- True. I recall charging ahead boldly, albeit unwittingly into a contentious area when I first started. I had to figure out what all those @*%$! TLAs meant on-the-fly.
- Thank you both for your help and for the explanation. I can definitely see how my edits could be seen as sockpuppetry -- it was definitely a reasonable conclusion to come to, especially given that I have such a small body of edits to try to make a judgment call with. Thank you for your help! --GeneralPericles (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I have noted your unblocking in the archived case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I have noted your unblocking in the archived case.
- @Berean Hunter: actually, I have spent at least an hour reading various policies and manuals before making my first anon edit so not entirely improbable =) Max Semenik (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You managed to wade into a contentious area that has been subject to significant sockpuppetry. A new editor that cites policies and guidelines knowledgeably such as consensus, edit warring and NPOV for their very first edits will usually raise the suspicions of most editors that you aren't new. To explain why your good edits might appear bad to experienced editors, sockmasters are known to use good hand and bad hand accounts to try to get what they want. Nonetheless, I'm accepting your explanations as truthful and unblocking you. Please accept my apology and I hope you will enjoy editing here. I will leave a welcome below with links that should help you get started.
- All right. I looked up Special:EmailUser and changed the email my account is associated with to my university email. I emailed both you (Max) and Berean Hunter with the email tool and disclosed my Facebook and LinkedIn profiles which you can verify are associated with that name and provide further proof that I am not Sju hav. Hopefully this helps. Thanks for your help, Max.
Welcome!
|
