User talk:Sepho

Hey there. I have blocked you indefinitely as a single purpose sock. If you object to this, do not hesitate to drop me a line to ask for a rethink on the puppetmaster account. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:47, 15 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, this is an alternate account of an existing WP user: * A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. * A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area. Sepho (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an legitimate use of an alternative account, rather it is a textbook example of avoiding scrutiny. I'm sending you an email with some further comments. —-bainer (talk) 07:55, 16 July 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.

It's hard for me to see why adding entries to a bibliogrpahy should be so controversial as to require a sockpuppet. A concern with this topic is that the ArbCom has placed it on probation, making the use of sockpuppets problematic. All that said, if the user gives an assurance that his or her main doesn't currently edit any other articles in the topic then the sock account seems harmless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have personal reasons why to hide my identity, and the use of a legit SP account is designed for this specific purpose. Of course, I will not use this account for any disruption. Sepho (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been involvd in editing any articles related to the topic of Prem Rawat in the last few months? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I answer your question, the whole purpose of this legitimate use of an SP account will be worthless. Sepho (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under probation per the ArbCom. If you cannot give an assurance that your sock puppet isn't being used to edit articles in the same topic as your main account then there is a reasonable concern that it is not legitimate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are involved in that dispute, it would be more sensible if you allow an uninvolved administrator to review the unblock request. I have contacted the ArbCom in this regard. Sepho (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not preventing any admin from reviewing the block. You're probably right that ArbCom members are in the best position to make a determination of what's proper in this case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, I have no ill intentions. I have declared my main account to an ArbCom member, as per Wikipedia:SOCK#Alternative_account_notification. Sepho (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you could ask arb(s) in the know to comment; if you prefer not to contact them yourself, I can see about doing so, as long as I know who I'm looking for. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]