User talk:Go leafs go 3000
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Go leafs go 3000, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Ysangkok (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Go leafs go 3000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Auntie E. (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid (Talk) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Go leafs go 3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This statement is an appeal regarding the blocking of my account, Go Leafs Go 3000. This appeal does not request that the block of Objectivity is Essential be overturned, because Go Leafs Go 3000 and the apparent sock puppet account, Objectivity is Essential, are accounts that are separate and apart. The inclusion of Objectivity is Essential in the arguments below, is to illustrate that the two accounts are indeed separate, and a false accusation has been made. First, I would like to indicate my faith in the developed system of Wikipedia sock-puppet allegations, and their mission to ensure that Wikipedia supports an environment where its users can contribute. With my faith in the Wikipedian justice system, I believe that justice will be administered and Go Leafs Go 3000 will be acquitted of the charge of sock puppetry. It is unreasonable to declare that Objectivity is Essential and Go Leafs Go 3000 are equivalent accounts, simply due to their agreement on two issues. Auntie E.’s accusation is early, in that there is not a consistent pattern of evidence in order to determine the validity of said accusation. If numerous amounts of edits were performed, and the edits were supported by both accounts, then perhaps a charge of sock puppetry could be substantiated; however, this is not the case, as such an opportunity was not provided, and therefore, the accusation is invalid. Furthermore, Auntie E’s evidence of “edit warring on Aileen Wuornos” is utterly false. Objectivity is Essential’s contribute page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Objectivity_is_Essential indicates that only one edit was made on the page by that user and one by Go Leafs Go 3000. Shortly thereafter, Wildhartlivie informed Objectivity is Essential that YouTube videos are not permitted as citations. A very brief discussion on the Talk Pages occurred; however, edit warring did not occur. Such an accusation, with absolutely no evidence, is unwarranted. I cannot explain Objectivity is Essential’s edits on Ryerson University, however, it is not unlikely for that user to have been searching public universities in Canada, as it is a common topic. Since I often use a public network, it is a very real possibility, that Objectivity is Essential, perhaps a user on this network, would visit the page. Once again, I cannot explain this user’s actions, but I do think that it needs to be considered that one user may be following another user’s contributions/edits. This does not necessarily mean that the one account is the sock puppet of another. Any person, noticing a dispute, can either agree or disagree with the dispute. Objectivity is Essential’s opinion was to agree with my position on the inclusion of entrance averages of Ryerson University. The fact that his user agreed with me is not grounds to formulate an accusation of sock puppetry. If Objectivity is Essential presented a dissenting opinion with my edit, such an accusation would not occur. Therefore, Auntie E.’s reasons do not justify an accusation of sock puppetry. Moreover, Objectivity is Essential and I possessed dissenting opinions regarding Ryerson University’s page. Objectivity is Essential agreed with ElKevbo that there was no original research in my statement that there is a lack of competitiveness at the university, and so, Objectivity is Essential. I still disagree with this since my statements were supported with citations; however, I am willing to accept the consensus of the rest of the Wikipedia community. Evidently, Objectivity is Essential is not a sock puppet account, because I would not refute my own argument. In conclusion, Objectivity is Essential is not a sock puppet account of my account, Go Leafs Go 3000. Auntie E.’s accusation is early, in that there is not a consistent pattern of evidence in order to conclude that the accusation is true. According to the presumption of innocence, the onus is on Auntie E. to provide compelling evidence that would suggest, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Objectivity is Essential is a sock puppet account of Go Leafs Go 3000. It is evident that there are reasonable doubts regarding this charge. Auntie E.’s accusation is unjustified, without reasonable grounds, and therefore, should be quashed. Unfortunately, I have been convicted of this charge without the opportunity to a fair trial and without the opportunity to present my arguments. I, therefore, request that my appeal be allowed and the conviction be overturned. I thank you for hearing my appeal and allowing the due process of law to occur.
Decline reason:
Checkuser confirmed sockpuppets. I suggest you go and read Wikipedia:CheckUser. --Deskana (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Go leafs go 3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(See above). I continue to hold the position that I have not sockpuppeted. With regards to Checkuser "confirming" sockpuppets, the grounds to use Checkuser were not justifiable, because the evidence used by Auntie E. was not sufficient. A section from the above passage illustrates this: It is unreasonable to declare that Objectivity is Essential and Go Leafs Go 3000 are equivalent accounts, simply due to their agreement on two issues. Auntie E.’s accusation is early, in that there is not a consistent pattern of evidence in order to determine the validity of said accusation. If numerous amounts of edits were performed, and the edits were supported by both accounts, then perhaps a charge of sock puppetry could be substantiated; however, this is not the case, as such an opportunity was not provided, and therefore, the accusation is invalid. Furthermore, Auntie E’s evidence of “edit warring on Aileen Wuornos” is utterly false. Objectivity is Essential’s contribute page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Objectivity_is_Essential indicates that only one edit was made on the page by that user and one by Go Leafs Go 3000. Shortly thereafter, Wildhartlivie informed Objectivity is Essential that YouTube videos are not permitted as citations. A very brief discussion on the Talk Pages occurred; however, edit warring did not occur. Such an accusation, with absolutely no evidence, is unwarranted.
Decline reason:
This account is no longer blocked. Closedmouth (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
New block
[edit]{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Actually, it appears you served out the time of the April block. Carry on. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)