User talk:Marriage of Convenience

May 2014

Hello, I'm McGeddon. Your recent edit to the page Illegal immigration in the United Kingdom appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage of Convenience, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Marriage of Convenience!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you must have expected, this account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on other accounts. I actually have some sympathy with your wish to neutralise what you perceive as the effects of a concerted effort to promote a point of view via Wikipedia, and that is part of the reason that I declined an earlier request to take action against one of your other accounts. However, you seem unable to see that almost everything you do is counterproductive, and merely serves to put yourself in the spotlight for disruptive editing. In particular, every time you create a sockpuppet account, you make it less likely that you will be able to achieve anything, because edits by your sockpuppets are likely to be reverted, and the more of a history of sockpuppetry you have, the less likely it becomes that any eventual unblock request on your original account will ever be accepted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not true. I live a city of 8,000,000 where there is a big Brahma Kumari community and an even more ex-members. For the most part we agree on what the Brahma Kumari followers are up to on the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University topic page. We don't just agree, we know as we still have connections within the religion and know very well what they are like. I am editing from my own computer and internet connection. The BKs just keep reporting and complaining to block anyone who touches their topic page and you do not appear to be considering to that. You are accusing people of not discussing changes as an excuse, the BKs won't to use this as a strategy to obstruct change, but at the same time you are remaining blind to the fact that the BKs created their advertising version without discussing with any one. Please discuss that. What are you going to do to improve the article? I reverted the topic to a much earlier version, not the same as "Truth is the Only Religion" made. --Marriage of Convenience (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. And please don't insult our intelligence by claiming you have been mixed up with one of eight million others. Clearly they don't all share the same IP. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (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.

You clearly haven't studied the history of my editing on this matter, if you think that I "do not appear to be considering" the problems with the editing by supporters of "Brahma Kumaris" or that I am "blind" to the problems. Indeed, my concern with those problems was a large part of my decision some time ago not to block another anti-Brahma Kumari account, even though it looked very likely to be a sockpuppet. I am indeed very much concerned about the editing by those editors, and considering what can be done about it. However, the administrator assessing your unblock request will do so on the basis of what you have done, and not what other editors have done that you disagree with, nor whether I am or am not considering what those other editors have been doing. I suggest that, if this unblock request is declined, before considering whether to post another one, you take the advice above to read the guide to appealing blocks, particularly the section WP:NOTTHEM.
I can assure you that in deciding to block this account I took into account a number of aspects of your editing, not just the fact that you agree with other editors who have been blocked, including some features of your editing which you are evidently completely blind to, which is fortunate, because it means you can't disguise them. What is more, since this block, further evidence linking this account to others has come to light.
I really really think it is most unfortunate that you keep trying to evade your block by means of sockpuppets. If instead you would consider the reasons for the block on your original account, and make an unblock request for that account, addressing those reasons, without attacking other people or bringing up irrelevances about how other editors behave, you might be able to return to editing. If you could return to editing within the framework of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, instead of fighting against them, you might be able to make valuable contributions, and balance some of the pro-Brahma Kumari bias which you quite rightly draw attention to. It is most unfortunate that instead to keep trying to defy Wikipedia policy, so that you remain blocked. I know I am probably wasting my time typing out this advice to you, as past experience suggests that you are likely to completely fail to take on board what is being said to you, but I am doing so in the hope that I may be wrong about that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]