User talk:Redandready

Cut and paste move

Hi, Redandready, and welcome to Wikipedia. The next time you need to rename an article, please be sure to use the page move function rather than cutting-and-pasting content from one article to another. For legal and organizational reasons, we are required to keep track of each editor's contributions, and when you paste-in content that other people wrote without giving them attribution, it gives the appearance that you created that content yourself. I have undone your cut-and-paste of "Roses" to "Roses (Catalan town)", but then used the page move function to retitle the article Roses, Girona. You were absolutely correct to think that "Roses" should be a disambiguation page, so I have also moved the page that was previously called "Roses (disambiguation)" to Roses.

Keep up the good work. I hope that you enjoy editing here. This page has lots of useful links for new Wikipedians. If you ever need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or feel free to leave me a message at the bottom of my talk page. All the best ×Meegs 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Plants!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Plants! Our scope includes any and all taxa of plants, botanists, and botany topics. We're glad to have you working with us on our project!

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We discuss our project frequently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. You can watchlist it to keep up with the conversations.

Here are some easy ways you can contribute:

Images: There are articles that need images. You can search Wikimedia Commons for images. When you find one, add it to the Wikipedia article in the taxobox and remove the "needs-photo=yes" parameter from the project banner on the talk page of the article. You could also help identify plant photos on Commons.
Taxobox: We also have articles that need taxoboxes. See the taxobox usage guide for information on how to add a taxobox. When complete, don't forget to remove the "needs-taxobox=yes" parameter from the talk page banner.
Stubs: Consider expanding one of our stubs or create one of our requested articles.
Assessment: You could also help assess our unassessed articles.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Rkitko ^(talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Barr and White.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Redandready!
We thank you for uploading Image:Barr and White.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Barr and Boman.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Barr and Boman.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was an oversight. I reloaded the image. My own work. Public domain.--Redandready (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)|}[reply]

Nice edits! Can you do more?

I see you did a good job of merging references in the article Scott Boman. It has been tagged for "Severe citation overkill." Please work your magic some more. Libertyguy (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Scott Boman, you may be blocked from editing. Adding political endorsements is not appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Connerly and Boman.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Dashairya section removal

I notice you were one of the editors who participated in the original discussion on merging the Bhagwan Dashairya article into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. The resulting section has been removed, and there is now a discussion on whether or not a section on Bhagwan Dashairya shold exist at all. You can find the discussion here:

Talk:Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Bhagwan_Dashairya.2C_redux

--Libertyguy (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)

I notice you were one of the editors who participated in the original discussion on merging the Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician) article into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. The consensus was "The result was Not to merge into Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006."

It was recently deleted by a PROD without an AfD. I sucessfully requested that it be restored, but it is now facing an AfD. If you are still interested in this article, you may participate in the AfD discussion here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Campbell_(Michigan_politician)

--Libertyguy (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Redandready. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested

Since you have done some work on articles involving Michigan minor party politicians and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, I thought you might want to help improve the article on Gregory Creswell. More sources are needed from reliable sources.Libertyguy (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brenda Lawrence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Peters. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Rosa abyssinica) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Rosa abyssinica, Redandready!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks great. I've linked it to the pre-existing commons category and I see someone else has already linked it to the articles in other languages and on Wikspecies. There's some photos of it that we can use on Flickr (uploaded by a Professor Malcolm Manners, who seems to know what he's talking about) and I might transfer some to Wikimedia Commons and then add them to the article myself if I have time (I'd do it now but Flickr2Commons is down right at the moment), but I thought I should let you know in case I don't get the chance.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to transfer the pictures over in case you find any you'd like to use. Hope that's OK! Blythwood (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the pictures you transferred?--Redandready (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - in the Wikimedia Commons category, it's here or linked from the Rosa abyssinica article in a link on the left of the page. Blythwood (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Redandready. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also editing as Kraanky.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 18 October 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't have multiple accounts. I use a college network for web access. There may be many other editors at this IP. I don't know any of them. Please look more closely at my edit history and the other accounts on this IP. There must be some way to tell us apart. The investigation indicates we made similar edits on the same article. This is remarkable, but coincidental. I don't have a personal network. How can I prevent this from happening again? --Redandready (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC) After closely reviewing the edits that lead to the checkuser block, I wish to put forth more considerations. I have an edit history that goes back 11 years. I have enough experience to know that accounts like the single purpose accounts I am accused of creating would immediately be flagged as likely sock puppets and be investigated. So why would I risk years as an editor over an info box in one article? Please consider that I could have reverted the contested changes without creating sock puppets, if I had wanted to, since I had not come close to 3RR. I only reverted the contested edit once. I kept the controversy on the talk page and steered clear of edit warring. --Redandready (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One could interpret the technical evidence as meat puppetry, which is recruiting people to help you in a content dispute. But it's difficult to accept that none of the accounts are related to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:49, 5 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

If you lack the time to read all my points and weigh them carefully, please pass over this request over and leave it to someone who has the time. I'm not in a hurry, and I don't want to repost this request in vein. Sock puppetry involves two components: * Multiple accounts by one user. * Abuse of those accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. == The same IP == It appears too remarkable to be true that another person would be editing the same article from the same IP. This is less remarkable if the IP 198.111.57.100 belongs to a college in Michigan with 60,000 users. There are probably dozens of other editors on this network and I don't know who any of them are. == The same article == The article concerned the top news item in Michigan. It is about our Gubernatorial Election. Since the network I use is in Michigan this topic would be on the forefront of everyone’s mind. If the college population was representative of the population of the state, there would be about 800 people on this network who voted for that candidate. It is not a big stretch to consider the possibility that only one of those people with an attitude problem would create multiple accounts (on a network I already used) shortly before an election to push for his or her candidate. I have been using this network long before those accounts were created, and I have not created more accounts. ==Please look deeper== I know I only have one account. Proving this to others is a challenge. I have carefully looked over the edit history, and I hope a more careful analysis will persuade the administrator reading this that there was insufficient evidence to make this conclusion. The original justification for the checkuser investigation given as:"Both newly-created accounts created solely to edit war to add Libertarian candidate to the infobox of Michigan gubernatorial election, 2018 with both apparently holding a grudge against User:Nevermore27 in either edit summaries or the talk page. Mélencron 12:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)" The implication is that I was on a lone mission to add this candidate to the info box, and that any other account sharing this objective was either created by me, or acting on my behalf. Not so. The point of view myself and the other blocked accounts expressed was already expressed by the user without an account at 24.127.238.196, and Criticalthinker. There was modest disagreement, by Tillerh11, but he prefaced his comment with, "There are no hard-and-fast rules for how to handle the infobox..." So this was a prevailing point of view in the discussion. So the suggestion that this view is so fringe that editors couldn't independently reach the same conclusion for the same reason is inconsistent with the edit history. The suggestion that I would find it necessary to create sockpuppets to make this edit isn't there. I made only one edit to the article in September, and one in October. I reverted only one edit of this article. That edit was in October. In my edit I directed Nevermore27 to the talk page. I then mentioned this on the talk page. Editors who were not involved in the investigation reverted edits as well. There is nothing in my action to suggest I was "holding a grudge against Nevermore27." I mention the fact that I in "both" meant the other accounts, then this only shows this sentiment to be shared by those (or that) editor(s), not I. Other accounts were rude to Nevermore27. Sock puppetry involves use of the accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. The other accounts didn't do anything that I couldn't do on my own. I could have reverted more edits without breaking policy, but chose not to. So the only policy being violated by them was bad manners. In my previous unblock request I said,[reply]

I have an edit history that goes back 11 years. I have enough experience to know that accounts like the single purpose accounts I am accused of creating would immediately be flagged as likely sock puppets and be investigated.

NinjaRobotPirate didn't comment on this point, but I ask you to think hard about this. Do you really think an editor with such a long history would throw it all away just to insult one editor? If so, why bother with sockpuppets? They just turn what would be a temporary block into a permanent one. ==Meat puppet or sock puppet== In declining my previous unblock request NinjaRobotPirate replied,

One could interpret the technical evidence as meat puppetry, which is recruiting people to help you in a content dispute. But it's difficult to accept that none of the accounts are related to each other.

He never indicates what the technical evidence for meat puppetry is. I asked NinjaRobotPirate

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims it says, "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." If you concede the possibility of meat puppetry, then that makes it a separate matter. Why shouldn't the indefinite block for sock puppetry be removed?

I got no response. One of the accounts being investigated was Wolfsden3 the CheckUser investigation indicated a different IP address in the same area, but it was unclear what this meant. The network I use is in SE Michigan where most of the state's population lives 24.127.238.196. Since this election was the top issue of the minds of Michigan voters there would be nothing remarkable about another person in SE Michigan making an edit to that article. No evidence of meat puppetry was provided: Having a common opinion about an edit is not evidence of meet puppetry. See my comments under the "same article" heading above.None of my edits support the contention that I held a "grudge" against Nevermore27; only a good faith disagreement I thought should be resolved on the talk page. ==Closing== I believe this is a correct interpretation of all evidence: 1. My 11 year old account (redandready) made good faith edits and participated in a discussion on the articles talk page. This included reverting an edit by Nevermore27. 2. Wolfsden3 is a new account by a person I don't know. That editor agreed with me about the infobox. Other participants in the discussion also agreed. Given the timing of that account creation, it may be properly labeled single-purpose. but it isn't mine and there is no common IP address. There is no basis at all to conclude that this is a meat puppet or a sock puppet of my account. 3. Kruggsby and Kraanky are apparently the same person. Similarity in names support this. The fact that they have the Checkuser investigation shows they have the same IP also supports this. Unfortunately the same investigation shows they also have the same IP as I do. 4. The common IP seems to show they are my Sockpuppets, but they are not. What must have happened is that one person with an attitude created 2 accounts on the same network I use. A network I use along with 60,000 other people in Michigan. Given the mathematical analysis above, this amazing coincidence isn't so remarkable after all. So after 11 years of editing on that network someone comes along and starts IP socking in the same article as I. It took only one rogue editor on this network to cause me this headache.--Redandready (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 21 December 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am repeating the same arguments here because Yamla gave no reason for declining the request: "Procedural decline only." The two weeks of elapsed time had nothing to do with the validity of the reasons for my request since I specifically asked that only an administrator who had time to read it over carefully should review it. Please refrain from procedural declines and simply leave it alone if you don’t have time to give the request due consideration. @Anachronist: I have taken time to read through all discussions pertaining to this SPI including discussions on the pages of other users involved in this SPI. I noticed this comment you made on December 6 here.

"Also, after reviewing the related, rational, and thoughtfully detailed unblock request at User talk:Redandready, I am convinced that Wolfsden and Redandready are not the same person, but there is still a behavioral issue to consider here with respect to WP:BATTLEGROUND."

I respectfully ask that you remove the sock puppet block and address my actual behavioral issues instead. If my political preference and attendance of Libertarian Party events amounts to a conflict of interest, I will disclose this involvement and refrain from discussions pertaining to the Libertarian Party of Michigan or its candidates. I apologize for my past participation in such edits and discussions, but I didn't know my participation was a COI and I noticed that at least one editor who was a self-identified Democrat also participated in the discussion on the 2018 Michigan gubernatorial election with no adverse consequences. ==This portion of my request had a procedural decline and was not read== If you lack the time to read all my points and weigh them carefully, please pass over this request over and leave it to someone who has the time. I'm not in a hurry, and I don't want to repost this request in vein. Sock puppetry involves two components: * Multiple accounts by one user. * Abuse of those accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. == The same IP == It appears too remarkable to be true that another person would be editing the same article from the same IP. This is less remarkable if the IP 198.111.57.100 belongs to a college in Michigan with 60,000 users. There are probably dozens of other editors on this network and I don't know who any of them are. == The same article == The article concerned the top news item in Michigan. It is about our Gubernatorial Election. Since the network I use is in Michigan this topic would be on the forefront of everyone’s mind. If the college population was representative of the population of the state, there would be about 800 people on this network who voted for that candidate. It is not a big stretch to consider the possibility that only one of those people with an attitude problem would create multiple accounts (on a network I already used) shortly before an election to push for his or her candidate. I have been using this network long before those accounts were created, and I have not created more accounts. ==Please look deeper== I know I only have one account. Proving this to others is a challenge. I have carefully looked over the edit history, and I hope a more careful analysis will persuade the administrator reading this that there was insufficient evidence to make this conclusion. The original justification for the checkuser investigation given as:"Both newly-created accounts created solely to edit war to add Libertarian candidate to the infobox of Michigan gubernatorial election, 2018 with both apparently holding a grudge against User:Nevermore27 in either edit summaries or the talk page. Mélencron 12:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)" The implication is that I was on a lone mission to add this candidate to the info box, and that any other account sharing this objective was either created by me, or acting on my behalf. Not so. The point of view myself and the other blocked accounts expressed was already expressed by the user without an account at 24.127.238.196, and Criticalthinker. There was modest disagreement, by Tillerh11, but he prefaced his comment with, "There are no hard-and-fast rules for how to handle the infobox..." So this was a prevailing point of view in the discussion. So the suggestion that this view is so fringe that editors couldn't independently reach the same conclusion for the same reason is inconsistent with the edit history. The suggestion that I would find it necessary to create sockpuppets to make this edit isn't there. I made only one edit to the article in September, and one in October. I reverted only one edit of this article. That edit was in October. In my edit I directed Nevermore27 to the talk page. I then mentioned this on the talk page. Editors who were not involved in the investigation reverted edits as well. There is nothing in my action to suggest I was "holding a grudge against Nevermore27." I mention the fact that I in "both" meant the other accounts, then this only shows this sentiment to be shared by those (or that) editor(s), not I. Other accounts were rude to Nevermore27. Sock puppetry involves use of the accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. The other accounts didn't do anything that I couldn't do on my own. I could have reverted more edits without breaking policy, but chose not to. So the only policy being violated by them was bad manners. In my previous unblock request I said,[reply]

I have an edit history that goes back 11 years. I have enough experience to know that accounts like the single purpose accounts I am accused of creating would immediately be flagged as likely sock puppets and be investigated.

NinjaRobotPirate didn't comment on this point, but I ask you to think hard about this. Do you really think an editor with such a long history would throw it all away just to insult one editor? If so, why bother with sockpuppets? They just turn what would be a temporary block into a permanent one. ==Meat puppet or sock puppet== In declining my previous unblock request NinjaRobotPirate replied,

One could interpret the technical evidence as meat puppetry, which is recruiting people to help you in a content dispute. But it's difficult to accept that none of the accounts are related to each other.

He never indicates what the technical evidence for meat puppetry is. I asked NinjaRobotPirate

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims it says, "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." If you concede the possibility of meat puppetry, then that makes it a separate matter. Why shouldn't the indefinite block for sock puppetry be removed?

I got no response. One of the accounts being investigated was Wolfsden3 the CheckUser investigation indicated a different IP address in the same area, but it was unclear what this meant. The network I use is in SE Michigan where most of the state's population lives 24.127.238.196. Since this election was the top issue of the minds of Michigan voters there would be nothing remarkable about another person in SE Michigan making an edit to that article. No evidence of meat puppetry was provided: Having a common opinion about an edit is not evidence of meet puppetry. See my comments under the "same article" heading above.None of my edits support the contention that I held a "grudge" against Nevermore27; only a good faith disagreement I thought should be resolved on the talk page. ==Closing== I believe this is a correct interpretation of all evidence: 1. My 11 year old account (redandready) made good faith edits and participated in a discussion on the articles talk page. This included reverting an edit by Nevermore27. 2. Wolfsden3 is a new account by a person I don't know. That editor agreed with me about the infobox. Other participants in the discussion also agreed. Given the timing of that account creation, it may be properly labeled single-purpose. but it isn't mine and there is no common IP address. There is no basis at all to conclude that this is a meat puppet or a sock puppet of my account. 3. Kruggsby and Kraanky are apparently the same person. Similarity in names support this. The fact that they have the Checkuser investigation shows they have the same IP also supports this. Unfortunately the same investigation shows they also have the same IP as I do. 4. The common IP seems to show they are my Sockpuppets, but they are not. What must have happened is that one person with an attitude created 2 accounts on the same network I use. A network I use along with 60,000 other people in Michigan. Given the mathematical analysis above, this amazing coincidence isn't so remarkable after all. So after 11 years of editing on that network someone comes along and starts IP socking in the same article as I. It took only one rogue editor on this network to cause me this headache.Redandready (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2019 (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.

Questions About SPI

I require clarity before making further unblock requests. Investigation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Redandready/Archive

@Berean Hunter: In the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" you commented, "Wolfsden3 is Possible to Kruggsy, matching UA in same area but on a different ISP" What did "matching UA in same area" mean? I am asking about both the meaning of "UA" and "same area." Were Kruggsy and Wolfsden3 logged in close enough to be the same person at both places? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Redandready/Archive Redandready (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:, @Mélencron: and @Sir Sputnik:. The investigation page had a space under the Comments by other users heading that said, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." why was I then blocked from commenting there? I am on a college network that is used by 60,000 other people. I don't have a personal network. How can I prevent this from happening again? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Redandready/Archive Redandready (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"matching UA in same area" sans technical jargon = it appears that the guy might have switched to another network locally. Meatpuppetry is also possible.

You were blocked previously for socking and continued with accounts and IP socking. Being convinced that you were culprit, I went ahead and blocked. You have the opportunity to defend yourself here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:

Thank you for responding, but I am still unclear on this. What do you mean by the same area? If you mean someplace in Southeast Michigan, this is weak since most of Michigan’s population lives in that region, and this article is about the most publicized topic in the state. What is the evidence for meatpuppetry related to Wolfsden3? The CheckUser investigation concluded that I had the same IP as Krugsy & Kranky, but not wolfsden3. I assume you don’t consider common opinion on an edit to be sufficient evidence of meatpuppetry.--Redandready (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble making sense of the second part of your response. I became aware of the both blocks at the same time. The first block was made a week after I had logged in or made an edit, and well before I logged in again. It sounds like you are saying I was blocked from the investigation page because of other people’s activity. But that wouldn’t make sense because it would mean you assumed I was guilty, when my guilt was the matter to be decided in the investigation. I will be defending myself here, but it is an uphill battle to reverse a ruling already made.--Redandready (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know blocks can be made at any time to prevent damage, but what damage did I cause? I have not made any destructive edits, and blocking me only stopped me from defending myself in the investigation. The only destructive edits were made by the holder(s) of other accounts which were erroneously identified as my sockpuppets.--Redandready (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were behind the camera in these shots right? I ask because sometimes folks who are the subjects get confused about licensing and claim them as theirs when someone else actually took the shots.

Right. I actually took the shots.--Redandready (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an apparent conflict of interest when it comes to editing about Scott Boman. Those shots span over time and not a single event. You know him and have an apparent working relationship with him. In your unblock request, you indicate 198.111.57.100 as "It appears too remarkable to be true that another person would be editing the same article from the same IP. This is less remarkable if the IP 198.111.57.100 belongs to a college in Michigan with 60,000 users. There are probably dozens of other editors on this network and I don't know who any of them are." It belongs to Macomb Community College where, according to his article, Scott Boman works as a professor. How do you think your statement theorizing the statistical improbability looks to us now? Or your statement, "There may be many other editors at this IP. I don't know any of them"?

This is an interesting composite uploaded by Libertyguy. It indicates that he also knows Scott Boman and has a conflict of interest. Who else would have access to those photos taken circa 1982? He showed up on 2018 Michigan gubernatorial election to back you guys up with a revert although he had never edited that article before and tried to sound impartial with "I reviewed the history and this discussion, and Nevermore27 is alone on this. When one editor keeps pushing against the consensus by constantly performing the same reverted edit, it is disruptive editing. Please stop it." Now, you are into statistical odds...what would be the odds that editors affiliated with the Libertarian party...not just Libertarian voters but people holding positions in Michigan Libertarian organizations (or people closely associated with the office holders) would converge on that article at the same time without some form of communication having occurred to set it in motion? I think that they are really, really small.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Boman at political events but we haven’t crossed paths on campus. I am a Libertarian but I don’t have a working relationship with him. I took a few pictures. My edits are in good faith and I don’t do them as a favor to anyone.

I only know libertyguy from Wikipedia. I don’t talk to people in real life about this private hobby of mine. I don’t feel the desire to speculate about another editor, but I think your approach to odds is all wrong. I already addressed this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redandready#The_same_article The timing was right before the election. So lots of people would be looking at it, and the most visible item would be the pictures at the top.--Redandready (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redandready where I've added the latest sock, Wizzybit, a sleeper that went active in January. Despite the garbage written above about all these other people using your network, you and that account are the only ones using your static IP address. He edits about Boman and uploaded this photo of him.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me

I'm not personally involved in why you got blocked nor am I relevant to your requests for review in the same, so if you intend to appeal again, please don't link to me. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]