User talk:Ask10questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Ask10questions! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dreamy \*/!$! 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|reason for unblock here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Hi. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and have heard of "sock puppets" before as the term is used on message boards. I do not feel that I am a sock puppet. I didn't post anonymously, and I have not posted under various names or from any location but my home PC.

The edits I posted to the Wikipedia IRV article are sourced. Each time, an employee of Fair Vote has deleted them.First it was Rob Richie, Director of Fair Vote deleting my edits. The last deletions were done by Tbouricius, a Fair Vote employee from Vermont.

If you check, you will see that Abd has identified a pattern by Fair Vote's director and others to delete any materials that are negative about IRV.

Yes, I have posted only articles, reports or news references that were negative. I posted them under the section labeled "Opposition Positions".

I do not feel that I have abused Wikipedia, because I have not deleted other people's edits, including Rob Richie or any of the Fair Vote employees. What I have done is provide documented and sourced information in what I thought was the appropriate location, under "Opposition".

If you will look at the article, you will see that thanks to Fair Vote's edits, the Opposition points have been pruned down greatly, so that the pro IRV articles outnumber them.

Unless the articles, reports or news accounts I have posted are not sourced, or are false, or not appropriate for the "opposition" positions, then Fair Vote's employees shouldn't be allowed to remove them.

If you look at anything posted by Rob Richie or Fair Vote employees, or his anonymous helpers, it all links back to Fair Vote.

Unlike Rob Richie or Fair Vote employees, I have not deleted their materials.

My agenda is that when people go to this wikipedia article, that they can go to the opposition section and see that there IS opposition to IRV, and that they can go to the direct report, news article or source to learn more.

Here are the last edits I added, that were deleted and then I was banned or labeled a sock puppet. Note, I have a valid email address registered with my Wikipedia account:

  • o added back to wikipedia on October 2 at 12:57 am.
  • Chuck Herrin, IT Certification specialist and White Hat Hacker on auditability and security under "Since You Asked.".
  • Instant Runoff Voting Not Meeting ExpectationsJohn Dunbar for "Beyond Chron"
  • The San Diego Elections Task Force Report Decision not to use IRV.
  • CALPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System trustees report on IRV.

If my edits to the "Opposition" section are not allowed, then why have an opposition section? Why not include these well researched reports, i.e San Diego Elections Task Force Report, or the California Public Employees' Retirement System trustees report? They are sourced.

I hope Wikipedia will reconsider my banning, and will allow the opposition section to contain these items of opposition. Otherwise, why have the opposition section? --Ask10questions 05:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "See [1], which I think is credible. — Sandstein 07:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Please wait as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 05:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
this user was not involved in any abusive editing, edit war, or violations of Wikipedia policy. I am the user who was the subject of the 3RR complaint that led to the blocking action against the complainant (a blatant sock for the BenB4 et al sock family, and I confirm that ask10questions was not engaged in any improper activity. She had been, in fact, a victim of the edit cabal. If some of her edits were properly modified later, that is normal. As far as I know, the only suspicious thing about her would be single-issue. She was not a recent registrant. She should be unblocked. Abd 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I received the following response from the blocking administrator:

I'm personally not looking into this matter any further. If this an issue of semantics, let me clear this up: they're all either sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or single-purpose accounts. Nothing is stopping them (or him or her, depending on who we're dealing with) from creating new accounts (or a new single account, if we're dealing with one person) and contributing positively and effectively to Wikipedia as a whole, instead of just proliferating a petty edit war about voting systems. I appreciate your input, but, in short, no, I'm not unblocking any of them. If you're unsatisfied with my answer, take this to WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He is wrong and he is right. He is wrong, for you did not engage in any edit war. Maybe you should have! But he is right, you can just create a new account. Technically, this would be a sock for your old account, but there are legitimate reasons for socks, and if it ever came to be an issue, it would be justified in this case. After all, an administrator suggested it, and above is the source, from my Talk page. I am with this affirming that you did not violate Wikipedia policy in any way. (It is not a violation of policy to make a POV edit, people do that all the time!, so the allegations made by Richie -- this is going on, you know -- that you did are irrelevant. You didn't revert anyone, you didn't do anything but try to edit the article so that it was better from your point of view.) Please do create a new account and follow his advice. He's right even though he was wrong. He doesn't want to have to dig into the details....

Basically, creating a new account will take you less time than it took to complain!

I have asked User:Scott Richie to help clean up the article, and I'm hoping that we have wider participation, from people in favor of IRV and those opposed and those who just care about having a good article. Abd 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have referred this situation to WP:ANI for further administrator input. Newyorkbrad 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Based on the user's overall edit history, comments in the unblock request, comments from other users, and input from other administrators in a discussion on ANI, I conclude that the block was unjustified. I have also considered the checkuser finding (by Jpgordon at ANI) that this user was not involved with the sockpuppetry on the article in question. In the absence of sockpuppetry, materially disruptive editing, or the like, choosing to edit in only one topic area is not grounds for a block, much less an indefinite block without warning. This editor is encouraged to edit in the future in conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Request handled by: Newyorkbrad 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)