User talk:P-j-t-a

Welcome!

Hello, P-j-t-a, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|reason for unblock here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 18:20, 3 October 2007 (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).

P-j-t-a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I freely admitted I was a new account in my 3RR report becuase I didn't want the sockpuppet allegations associated with my (work) IP address. Why does that get ME blocked? I haven't even edited any articles with this account. Look at all the people that Tariqabjotu blocked -- their edit histories, their user pages, and tell me they are all sockpuppets. Some of them were on opposite sides of the IRV debate, for goodness sake! This needs another set of eyes, please. P-j-t-a 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a form of "good hand"/"bad hand" activity. In creating accounts solely to disassociate contentious actions from uncontroversial ones, you violate our guidelines for account use. If you believe a report was necessary, then you need to stand to account for your reports. —-Haemo 19:54, 3 October 2007 (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.

Request to unblock others clearly blocked in error

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).

P-j-t-a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fine, I can go back to IP editing as I have for years as soon as the auto-block on this account expires. However, I would like to request an unblock for two accounts which were caught up in this without reason. This unblock request is not for me, it is for the two accounts listed below.

Decline reason:

They can put up their own requests. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:29, 3 October 2007 (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.

Ask10questions (talk · contribs) - this person was arguing on the other side of the debate, against all of the other people who got blocked. So they registered a few months ago and only edited election methods pages. And they get called a "sockpuppet or single purpose account." That, to me, is absurd. I strongly disagreed with some of this user's edits, but I ask that they be unblocked, please.

Tbouricius (talk · contribs) - this is Terry Bouricius, a former member of the Vermont House of Representatives[1] who's specialty was election method reform. Is it suprising to see that he has only edited election methods articles? I don't think so. If you look at his talk page, you will see that he was personally recognized by very long-standing wikipedian User:Tomruen who also objects to his blocking and awarded him a barnstar to show the depth of his feelings in that regard. Please unblock Rep. Bouricius.

Leave me blocked if you must, but please unblock those two. Thank you. P-j-t-a 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd (talk · contribs) - I am Abd, the target of the 3RR complaint by P-j-t-a. As the blocking administrator noticed, p-j-t-a was a single purpose account, created for no other reason than to report me for reverting edits by the sock User:acct4 and perhaps the COI editor Tbouricius. Ask10questions was not a part of any sock puppetry, abuse of reverts, or cabal. There is no reason, as far as I am aware, why Ask10questions should properly have been blocked, other than the necessity of quick judgement, and I've been following this closely. I was blocked too! Which, again, was proper for a quick response.

As to Tbouricius, this is the real name of a person who is not a sock, unless he has some other account. However, he registered, apparently, to enter and assist the cabal in maintaining control over the article, and could be considered, in that sense, a meat puppet. The other members of the cabal]], beyond the sock BenB4 and his replacement sock User:Acct4 were the anonymous long-term revert-abusing editor from 72.75.x.x, with one instance being Special:Contributions/72.75.48.229, whom I have identified with certainty as using the IP of the Executive Director of FairVote, Rob Richie, and thus COI par excellence; and, finally, with no specific abusive actions but his support for the positions of the cabal and silence about the abuse, the user User:Tomruen who, properly, in my opinion, has not been blocked, and is active. Tom Ruen is officially affiliated with FairVote, and Terrill Bouricius is a consultant for FairVote and co-author of an article with Rob Richie advocating IRV.

But if they were all blocked, say for COI, there would be no current participation on the page from those who are advocating the election method! I would support lifting the block from Tbouricius, provided that he agrees to refrain from insisting through edit war that controversial material be on the page. Where there is dispute over it, material should not be in the article until there is a consensus, and, if proper process is followed, I have no intention of being the Lone Ranger. The cabal was insisting, in effect, that they owned the article and were the judge of what was relevant and balanced, and what was not. That had to stop. My concern is process, not content per se.

As an amusing incident in this affair, When p-j-t-a filed the 3RR notice, he made an error in syntax. It was shortly edited to correct it by Acct4, thus practically proving, on the face, that p-j-t-a was a continuing sock for that whole pile of socks, and thus his denial above is just one more deception in a long line of deceptions. If the advocates in the cabal had acted to restrain their wayward supporter, or, at least, to condemn them, they would not have suffered such a loss of access. I'm assuming that Tom Ruen will continue to behave properly. I have asked User:Scott Ritchie to assist in cleaning up the article, and he agreed to take a look at it soon. His work with Single Transferable Vote, closely related to Instant Runoff Voting, was excellent and it was a featured article at one time.

I am aware that the two blocked users will have to request unblock personally, and I will suggest it to them.

I want to thank User:Tariqabjotu for his administrative intervention, and I hope we can lift the partial block and POV tag soon. Note that I did not place the POV tag! Abd 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]