User talk:Schneehasi

PLease stop, your edits are causing problems in that you are put these into categopries to which they dont belong, such edit could be considered vandalism, Gnan garra 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Gnan garra 02:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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).

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

Request reason:

First of all, I want to apologize for continuing edits after the initial block. I'm a new user and hadn't seen the first message - I am still learning about user pages and talk pages. I don't believe that I am spamming a link. I only wanted to improve the pages by adding information about the estimated greehouse emissions and the Australian Government's on reductions on greenhouse gas emissions, which affect the coal burning power stations. In the explanation for the block of 17.11 you talk about WP:RS as the reason for removal, not spamming. I understand this means you think my source is unreliable. I would like to appeal your assesment that a block is warranted, that I was spamming a link and that CARMA estimates for greenhouse gas emissions of Australian power plants are not reliable. I believe that the fact that CARMA is a lobby group is irrelevant to any debate about their reliablity to their source. I have considered your comments and would be happy to change my edits from:"The power station emits 5.67 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year[2] as a result of burning coal" to "The US Climate change lobbying group CARMA estimates that the power station emits 5.67 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year[2] as a result of burning coal." and include the rest of the paragraph as is. Furthermore I don't understand, why you have been deleted the rest of the paragraphs. It has as references: 1. the IPCC 2. the Australian government 3. a well reviewed and contested Wikipedia Page Why would these sentences be regarded as spamming links or unrelieable sources? Would you be happy in light of my proposed changes to lift the block and accept the edit?

Decline reason:

Schneehasi, I have reviewed this block and your unblock request. Initially I was prepared to reduce your block since you now seem willing to discuss your edits. However, on closer review, I have found a third account which was making extraordinarily similar edits to articles on the very same day (November 14) that you were making them. We are looking at this closely and so I would ask you to identify the accounts that you are operating, including accounts that you and your friends are using to co-ordinate your editing. I'm rather concerned with this spamming-like behaviour and the use of multiple accounts ot co-ordinate activities, going from page-to-page like this, ignoring attempts at communication and resuming the same behaviour as soon as the previous block expired. It seems apparent to me that these accounts are being used to serve an off-site purpose, rather than to improve Wikipedia. Thus I am declining this unblock request at this time. If you are operating socks, it would be in your favour to be honest about that now, otherwise it is quite possible that this account will actually end up being blocked indefinitely. — Sarah 00:33, 19 November 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.

Hmm, it would appear that you also used another account, Myungbo38 (talk · contribs), to perform similar edits. Have you consulted our policies and guidelines, including our policy about sockpuppetry? Are there any other accounts you would like to claim? --slakr^\ talk / 06:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account Myungbo38 (talk · contribs) belongs to a friend of mine and is not a sockpuppet. I do not have any other Wikipedia accounts. My friend and I work in the same building and are on the same network and did collaborate on the wording of the edits we were each making. This is why we have the same IP address. While I appreciate your concern about sockpuppetry we are two separate people. If such collaboration is regarded as sockpuppetry then we will not make the same edits as one another again. I would like you to consider the merit of the proposed rewording and whether the block is warranted in the first place. That is, why is CARMA not a reliable source, at least for an estimate, and how can the other two sentences be regarded as having unreliable sources? In any event I ask you to consider whether links to CARMA in support of an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions can properly be regarded as spamming under Wikipedia policy. Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues. Schneehasi (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are both different people, you are both making identical edits Wikipedia doesnt make any distinction between a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet see WP:SOCK. Either way the action of both accounts only further confirms that the purpose of the edits was to spam Wikipedia with Carma links... Gnan garra 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you are assuming bad faith on my part and not addressing the issue of whether CARMA is a reasonable source for an estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions of these individual power stations. I'm also disappointed, that you have not addressed why the statements and sources in the second and third sentences are spamming or unreliable. I have accepted that the type of collaboration we did may not be appropriate however I do not accept, that CARMA is not a reliable source for an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions and I would like to appeal your decision on that issue and I ask for a consideration of that issue by other administrators. I do however appreciate the time you are taking to resolve this. Sincerely Schneehasi (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah for considering my request. I talked to my other friends and found that phanly also made one edit re Kogan Power Station. Paul is a longstanding editor and is clearly not a sockpuppet. Can we separate three issues. The first is whether collaboration between people to edit a series of pages is spamming or sockpuppetry even if the edits are otherwise okay. Second whether CARMA is a reasonable source for an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from an Australian coal fired power station. Third whether in a page on an Australian coal fired power station a reference to the IPCC findings and the Australian governments stated policy is spamming or unreliable. I request that the blocking decision separately consider each of these issues. If the collaboration is unacceptable I will not do it again. This leaves the other two issues which I believe should be decided in my favour as the IPCC findings and the Australian government policy are relevant to each major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks again for taking the time to consider this block Schneehasi (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I cannot believe that you and Phanly just happened to be making near identical edits at the same time without knowledge of the other accounts until now. A much simpler, obvious and credible explanation is that Phanly is using these accounts to edit disruptively and spam in order to keep his primary account "clean". As you say - "Paul is a longstanding editor and is clearly not a sockpuppet" - this is not only rubbish (plenty of so-called "longstanding editors" have turned out to be socks or sockmasters) but also a rationale and motivation to use socks and apparently expect to keep his primary account detached and with a clean record. We have had a checkuser check run which confirms that the same person is operating all these accounts - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Phanly. That's really the icing on the cake as the behaviour and editing evidence here were really sufficient enough on their own to justify blocking these accounts. In addition, Ajefferson ajj (talk · contribs) is also blocked indefinitely, as is this account. And Phanly is blocked for 8 days - ten days, being seven days for this disruptive editing block, less time served (about two days), plus three days for Phanly's disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. I really urge you to use this block to take a break and rethink what you are doing here because you're heading straight towards a ban if you continue in this way. Sarah 06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of 1 Week from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gnan garra 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]