User talk:PlatanusOccidentalis

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Ionas68224 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Since I am already blocked, I might as well reveal that
I am a sockpupppet of user:Ionas68224. Although I also
admit to using the sockpuppets identified by Jayjg to
protect my good account from a block, I find the way 
Jayjg just randomly checked my account abusive. Given 
Jay's past history, he probably checked it due to my
appearance at the page Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier
bringing up an inappropriate title. Although it did
turn up sockpuppets (and Jayjg is not really a good
checkuser, as he did not notice that on this account, I
have logged in with my home IP), the random use of
checkuser on people you disagree with is wrong. 
PlatanusOccidentalis 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Messages Below

Welcome!

Hello, PlatanusOccidentalis, 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 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! Guettarda (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a recent consensus?

Based on the fact that your first two mainspace articles were to revert hard-won consensus Rosalind Picard and James Tour, the only two articles subject of a disruptive campaign organized at WikipediaReview by a banned user, followed by a comment at User:Filll that appears to trolling, I'm issuing you this warning: If you continue to undo the fragile consensus at these two articles I will take it as evidence of your intent engage in disruptive editing and trolling rather than constructive contributions and will follow the steps outlined at WP:DE to stop the disruption, which may include a block or permanent ban. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Meatpuppetry

User:Moulton is an indefinitely banned editor, and his ban was in large part due to his edits to Rosalind Picard vis-a-vis the petition. Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets not only strongly discourages editing on the behalf of banned editors, but provides for the original remedy applied to the banned user, his ban, to extend to his meatpuppets as well: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

After taking a look at your history and that of indef banned editor Moulton who has been recruiting and advising meatpuppets at WikipediaReview on editing the Picard article in his place, I see that your edits here [1] exactly matches word-for-word the edits User:Moulton calls for someone there to make on his behalf: [2] Should you repeat the edits Moulton calls for at Rosalind Picard and James Tour Moulton's ban will be extended to cover you as well per Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. I was not recruited, I chose to do so. Filll and you chose to accuse me of meatpuppetry. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SOCK#Meatpuppets fails to recognize such a distinction, and walking in the footsteps of a banned user has been the sole necessary and sufficient grounds for extending bans to meatpuppets in both arbcom precedent and community convention. You've gotten very poor advice from Moulton; I suggest steering clear of the articles he's recruiting others to edit on his behalf. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to act on Moulton's behalf (that just happened to be my first edits' purpose) and I will begin contributing other than that. PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling and abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely for trolling and abusing multiple accounts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ACCWBHB and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mantan_Samuel_I._Harris_Moreland%27s_Last_Exit Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 20 May 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

That was not "trolling", which, as I understand it, is making posts that do not necessarily reflect your point of view, but try to attract flame posts. The ACCWBHB account was used to ask Mercury a question (and I didn't make the connection Jon+nathan=Jonathan) and to clarify something about Mercury's second account. The MSIHMLE account was to notify about Mantanmoreland (to tell the truth about what happened) , although the name was provocative. --Platanus Occidentalis 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Creating new accounts for the sole purpose of attacking other users is clearly inappropriate. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:30, 20 May 2008 (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.