User talk:Traceylovell

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Talk  23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

--Jza84 |  Talk  23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

unblock: why am I suspected to be Pr Philip? Is it because I support his view? Surely an administrator just needs to check the IP address of me, as I am presuming it would be diferent to Pr Philip who I am suspected of being

--fvw* 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked for being a "single-purpose account" - one of three that have popped up on Talk:Leeds in the last 24 hours. A review of your contribution history shows you are clearly not a new user with Wikipedia's interests at heart. Per the warning on User talk:Pr D Phillip, you may use one username, not several to give the impression of a cohort.

On the flipside, it is possible you are a meatpuppet, a seperate individual signed up by request of Phillip, in which case you should remain blocked for gaming the system. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have been reading this discussion for some time. It is completely expected that where a discussion is going on, which is finely balanced, where the view points of others is needed, that people like myself become encouraged to go for it and make their opinion known. How dare you ban people with no basis other than what you feel is just a hunch. I am going to request other administators look into what you have done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traceylovell (talk • contribs)

In which case, can you please confirm your ip address? Or else you can e-mail me using the console on my user page. Wikipedia does not attract readers of talk pages who jump in and call their friends "excellent" and "perfect"; I'm an editor with 3years+ experience; we need to get real here. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a democracy: we have tough rules to maintain the integrity of our content. Indeed, people recruited by others to bias a discussion are to be treated as one-and-the same as the original user (its written in our policy WP:SOCK). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My IP addresss is 92.9.65.38 which as said before presumebly will be diferent to this person I dared to agree with! As an administrator you should be able confirm and check the IP addresses and even the ISP. And yes, the example new wording I thought was "perfect" as it dealt with the problem that I had just re-read for 40 minutes, only to be banned. I think there should be a warning on the Leeds discussion page, where anyone reading the whole discussion and feeling outraged, and compelled to sign up and put across their own opinion should not do so incase they are banned and accused of being someone else on just a hunch! and if we want to go on hunches what a surptise you are an avid supporter of all promotional wording and changes for the Manchester page, but the opposite here, blocking people who through concensus disagree with you. If you are not going to remove this ban based on a hunch, other administrators really need to have a good look here.

So, were you User:Owl Night then too? Honestly? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

As an uninvolved admin, I have reblocked this account. It has been noted that there are two possible explanations for your pitching in at talk:Leeds with your first edit: one is that this is a sockpuppet account, the other is that you have been asked in some external venue to come here to support someone. This is known colloquially as "meatpuppetry" and is also unacceptable. You clearly cannot be expected to know that if you are genuinely a new user, so this block will be discussed and reviewed. It will not be a problem unblocking you if you will give a voluntary undertaking not to involve yourself in the Leeds dispute until it is settled - it is quite heated enough as it is. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)