User talk:KU2018

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).

KU2018 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not Oscar248. I edit at Kingston Uni on a shared IP address - it covers the whole library KU2018 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if we believed you (and we don't), this username is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 14:25, 22 January 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.

Yamla, I can change the username if you like (I don't know how to change it though). I assure you I am not Oscar248. Presumably they are a student here as well. KU2018 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser indicates you used to edit as User:Oscar248. Therefore this account is blocked indefinitely, to match the block on that account. You are not permitted to edit using any account while your existign accounts are subject to an existing block. Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, CheckUser uses a lot more than just IP address to establish a link (though exactly what is a guarded secret, for obvious reasons). Just off the top of my head, I can think of at least five (Wait, actually six. No, wait, seven. No, wait again... You get the idea.) different bits of technical data the servers here would have access too that could uniquely identify a particular user of a particular computer, as well as statistical methods that could be used to distinguish between two people on the same account and computer, none of which are particularly difficult to implement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People use different computers in the library as well. Where was the 'proof' besides the IP link between myself and Oscar248? KU2018 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a public court; no-one is required to give you a fair trial, let alone allow you to examine the evidence. No-one is permitted to see CheckUser results except those editors explicitly permitted to use the tools (not even all admins). All I'm doing here is trying to explain why they came to that conclusion (a conclusion which I accept as true). My advice would be to give up on editing WP and find another hobby. Given your history of disruption and your crystal clear political POV (just the fact that you have one, it doesn't matter whether you're left- or right-wing), I would say you are temperamentally unsuited to editing WP. I'd advice you to write a blog instead, or possibly to edit Conservapedia. I'm unwatching your page now, so I'll not see any more replies. Don't bother to ping me, as I really don't have anything else to say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, I am a sockpuppet - Oscar248 etc. My intentions for editing were initially good - felt like some right wing articles were biased - this plays into the base of these groups in a vicious cycle. I would like to (eventually) constructively edit Wikipedia as I feel there are large gaps of information in some subjects such as Geography, Transport etc. I have great trouble dropping the stick - because I (rightly or wrongly) think that consensus is not always correctly applied and can lead to opinion pushing on the site. I also have had a lot of enjoyment editing the controversial pages even if I am not suited to them. I hope to try and better control this if I am allowed back on the site.

Perhaps the standard offer (22nd July or later) is the best option, to come back on Oscar248. I have other, more important hobbies such as my running. My eagerness to edit has led to me creating more sockpuppets. I would like to be unblocked now but I understand why I am not going to be. I am really not sure how to make myself a better editor as my interest in my view of articles being factual takes over.

I understand why my account and others like mine have been banned, some edits are disruptive. The issue we have with the indefinite blocks is it makes it look like there is no return to the site for the editor. Blocked editors believe that the best thing to do is to sockpuppet because it is too difficult for them to get their real account unblocked. It is so easy for people to sockpuppet that it is done a lot of the time unnoticed. Sockpuppetting is such a common occurrence that I reckon many so called good standing editors (great editors even) are technically sockpuppets. I will try to not be silly and avoid sockpuppeting, so I return to good standing at some point. User:MjolnirPants made some really helpful statements earlier about the different aspects of political pages - thanks. I might just take up your advice of starting a blog. All Editors: in the meantime if you want to talk about anything to do with my editing and sockpuppetry or articles, feel free to do so.

I am truly sorry for all the disruption caused - believe me that it is not my intention to mess up the site. There is enough good people on Wikipedia to keep it great. Thanks to all the tireless contributions of all the editors who have made the site what it is.

Thanks, Alex

I have reposted the declined unblock requests, which you are not permitted to blank. (Sincere) thanks for admitting your attempts to mislead us. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]