|
Hello.
I noticed in your most recent edit that you find Wikipedia's markup (it's kind of like HTML but not quite) confusing. You're right to do so -- it's a weird system. For future reference, perhaps this link will serve as a helpful references: /info/en/?search=Help:Wiki_markup. It contains a summary of a lot of different things you can do with Wiki markup. Alephb ( talk) 12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ralfellis. Now that you have posted at the sockpuppet investigation, I hope you also read my comments there, specifically this. In response to your own post, I'd better give you an explicit warning here on your page. At the SPI I had referred to the policy WP:MEAT; the relevance of that becomes even more obvious now that you have yourself stated that you "had to rely on freinds and supporters to make any revisions on my behalf". My italics. Please go to the WP:MEAT link and read. What you see there is Wikipedia policy: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." Any sockpuppets or meatpuppets editing on your behalf will be blocked on sight. If you disrupt Wikipedia again by using them, your own account Ralfellis will also be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
It looks like I was too nice and assumed too much good faith on your part. Since you have now acknowledged
Narwhal2 as a sock of yours
[1], and Narwhal2 is in turn linked to a whole sockfarm
here (confirmed by checkuser
Tiptoety), you have clearly been violating our policy on sockpuppetry for at least 10 years. I have blocked you indefinitely, and would not object to a
site ban if one was proposed. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 16:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
Ralfellis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request an unblock. I have been blocked because of additional usernames (sockpuppets). But I only had to use additional usernames, because Dougweller has been trying to delete me from Wiki for ten years now. Dougweller does not like my edits, as I presume he finds them controversial, but they are all reasoned and within the bounds of Wiki policy. The current dispute is a case in point, where my edit to the The Exodus has finally been accepted, after three months of debate. (It was a single sentence quoting two words from Josephus Flavius - a historian who has thousands of quotations on other Wiki pages.)
In the process of making this small update I was banned - not because my edit was outrageous or violated Wiki policy, but because I was using a new username. But I was only using a new username, because Dougweller banned me over ten years ago, and has continued to ban me for using new usernames to circumvent the original username ban. But the original ban was unjustified, and based upon the personal preferences and views of Dougweller. If I can be shown to have been making inappropriate edits to Wiki pages, a ban would indeed be justified. But all my updates, like the 'intermitancy of wind power' (now called 'variability') have eventually been accepted. Renewable variability now even has its own Wiki page and has become mainstream, although it was deemed to be a heresy ten years ago that resulted in a ban.
So I request an unblock, and to use my original username. I have been banned for over ten years now, but I think I have demonstrated good and reasonable edits since that time. And a further ban, simply because I was banned ten years ago on wholly unreasonable charges, is no longer justified.
Decline reason:
When you are blocked, you are not allowed to create new accounts to continue editing. And using an unblock request to attack other editors will not get you unblocked. I think the WP:STANDARDOFFER is probably the best you are going to get right now - stay away for at least six months with no socking and then make an unblock request from your original account. (Even then I don't rate your chances very highly considering the extent of your socking, but I think it's your only chance.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
Boing! said Zebedee, could you clarify whether Ralph is being extended the standard offer? JerryRussell ( talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Ralfellis, I'm always amazed at what I learn when I take the time to read the policies. WP:STANDARDOFFER isn't a policy or guideline, it's just an essay. The blocking policy, which is at WP:BLOCK, says If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on WP:ANI.
Hey, 'editors' includes me, right?
And what happens after six months, under the standard offer? The user has to find a friendly admin or editor willing to open a thread at ANI. So we're in exactly the same place six months from now, as we are today!
But, Ralph, any editor who would open such a thread is going out on a limb. In a sense, that editor is staking their own Wikipedia reputation on the future behavior of that blocked editor. It's not a responsibility to be taken on lightly.
Wikipedia editing is basically a cooperative process. The only way anyone ever gets any edits into the encyclopedia, is by working with other editors until there's a general agreement that the edits conform with all the policies. You can't go assuming that everyone who disagrees with any of your edits, is some sort of fascist who is trying to suppress 'the Truth'. In many cases, they're just insisting that the edits comply with the basic policies like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.
It may be true that Doug Weller doesn't agree with your ideas about climate change, or about biblical research. It might even be true that's the real reason he is always involved in blocking you. That doesn't matter. The first time he blocked you, he probably had a good, policy based reason. Something like a WP:3RR violation, or failure to assume good faith WP:AGF, or inappropriate self-citation as a violation of WP:COI. And every time you've been blocked since, it's at least partly because you never followed the procedure to get yourself unblocked.
There are good reasons for the policies against editing while blocked, too. The editors want to make sure you understood what happened, so that it doesn't happen again. Although there's also a confusion between "sock-puppeting" vs. "editing while blocked". I don't see any evidence you've ever simultaneously operated multiple accounts for the purpose of manipulating consensus.
Ralph -- would you consider apologizing, right here, for having evaded your past blocks? It's a community standard here: if somebody blocked you, it's important to go through the proper procedures to understand what caused the problem. The purpose is to restore good faith with the other editors. JerryRussell ( talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
.
Just for anyone reviewing this issue later, the socks include User:Ralphellis, User:Ralfellis, User:Tatelyle, User:Disranter, User:Arnatorim, User:Samosterat, User:Hoogson, User:Narwhal2, along with whatever username(s) was/were supposedly blocked for vandalism in 2004. Whether this constitutes "something like a dozen," I'll leave for other editors to judge. Did you use some of these to edit the same articles in an overlapping fashion, or are you seriously expecting people to believe that you made each of these when the previous one was blocked in order to simply avoid blocks without using the multiple accounts abusively? Alephb ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide some more context for anyone else passing by here:
Manipulating multiple accounts to give the appearance of added support for one's position in a consensus-building exercise is an extreme violation of community trust, which often earns editors a long block or site ban even if they only do it once. Ralphellis has done it at least three times since 2009 up to last month, and has separately created multiple accounts to engage in harassment, which I find especially disgusting. And they are continuing to try to obfuscate this history by suggesting missing logs and events and interactions which did not occur, all the while continuing to perpetuate the content dispute while blocked. As such, talk page access revoked. Good luck with your appeal to WP:UTRS in no less than six months. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
|
Hello.
I noticed in your most recent edit that you find Wikipedia's markup (it's kind of like HTML but not quite) confusing. You're right to do so -- it's a weird system. For future reference, perhaps this link will serve as a helpful references: /info/en/?search=Help:Wiki_markup. It contains a summary of a lot of different things you can do with Wiki markup. Alephb ( talk) 12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ralfellis. Now that you have posted at the sockpuppet investigation, I hope you also read my comments there, specifically this. In response to your own post, I'd better give you an explicit warning here on your page. At the SPI I had referred to the policy WP:MEAT; the relevance of that becomes even more obvious now that you have yourself stated that you "had to rely on freinds and supporters to make any revisions on my behalf". My italics. Please go to the WP:MEAT link and read. What you see there is Wikipedia policy: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." Any sockpuppets or meatpuppets editing on your behalf will be blocked on sight. If you disrupt Wikipedia again by using them, your own account Ralfellis will also be blocked. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
It looks like I was too nice and assumed too much good faith on your part. Since you have now acknowledged
Narwhal2 as a sock of yours
[1], and Narwhal2 is in turn linked to a whole sockfarm
here (confirmed by checkuser
Tiptoety), you have clearly been violating our policy on sockpuppetry for at least 10 years. I have blocked you indefinitely, and would not object to a
site ban if one was proposed. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 16:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
Ralfellis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request an unblock. I have been blocked because of additional usernames (sockpuppets). But I only had to use additional usernames, because Dougweller has been trying to delete me from Wiki for ten years now. Dougweller does not like my edits, as I presume he finds them controversial, but they are all reasoned and within the bounds of Wiki policy. The current dispute is a case in point, where my edit to the The Exodus has finally been accepted, after three months of debate. (It was a single sentence quoting two words from Josephus Flavius - a historian who has thousands of quotations on other Wiki pages.)
In the process of making this small update I was banned - not because my edit was outrageous or violated Wiki policy, but because I was using a new username. But I was only using a new username, because Dougweller banned me over ten years ago, and has continued to ban me for using new usernames to circumvent the original username ban. But the original ban was unjustified, and based upon the personal preferences and views of Dougweller. If I can be shown to have been making inappropriate edits to Wiki pages, a ban would indeed be justified. But all my updates, like the 'intermitancy of wind power' (now called 'variability') have eventually been accepted. Renewable variability now even has its own Wiki page and has become mainstream, although it was deemed to be a heresy ten years ago that resulted in a ban.
So I request an unblock, and to use my original username. I have been banned for over ten years now, but I think I have demonstrated good and reasonable edits since that time. And a further ban, simply because I was banned ten years ago on wholly unreasonable charges, is no longer justified.
Decline reason:
When you are blocked, you are not allowed to create new accounts to continue editing. And using an unblock request to attack other editors will not get you unblocked. I think the WP:STANDARDOFFER is probably the best you are going to get right now - stay away for at least six months with no socking and then make an unblock request from your original account. (Even then I don't rate your chances very highly considering the extent of your socking, but I think it's your only chance.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
Boing! said Zebedee, could you clarify whether Ralph is being extended the standard offer? JerryRussell ( talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Ralfellis, I'm always amazed at what I learn when I take the time to read the policies. WP:STANDARDOFFER isn't a policy or guideline, it's just an essay. The blocking policy, which is at WP:BLOCK, says If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on WP:ANI.
Hey, 'editors' includes me, right?
And what happens after six months, under the standard offer? The user has to find a friendly admin or editor willing to open a thread at ANI. So we're in exactly the same place six months from now, as we are today!
But, Ralph, any editor who would open such a thread is going out on a limb. In a sense, that editor is staking their own Wikipedia reputation on the future behavior of that blocked editor. It's not a responsibility to be taken on lightly.
Wikipedia editing is basically a cooperative process. The only way anyone ever gets any edits into the encyclopedia, is by working with other editors until there's a general agreement that the edits conform with all the policies. You can't go assuming that everyone who disagrees with any of your edits, is some sort of fascist who is trying to suppress 'the Truth'. In many cases, they're just insisting that the edits comply with the basic policies like WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.
It may be true that Doug Weller doesn't agree with your ideas about climate change, or about biblical research. It might even be true that's the real reason he is always involved in blocking you. That doesn't matter. The first time he blocked you, he probably had a good, policy based reason. Something like a WP:3RR violation, or failure to assume good faith WP:AGF, or inappropriate self-citation as a violation of WP:COI. And every time you've been blocked since, it's at least partly because you never followed the procedure to get yourself unblocked.
There are good reasons for the policies against editing while blocked, too. The editors want to make sure you understood what happened, so that it doesn't happen again. Although there's also a confusion between "sock-puppeting" vs. "editing while blocked". I don't see any evidence you've ever simultaneously operated multiple accounts for the purpose of manipulating consensus.
Ralph -- would you consider apologizing, right here, for having evaded your past blocks? It's a community standard here: if somebody blocked you, it's important to go through the proper procedures to understand what caused the problem. The purpose is to restore good faith with the other editors. JerryRussell ( talk) 22:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
.
Just for anyone reviewing this issue later, the socks include User:Ralphellis, User:Ralfellis, User:Tatelyle, User:Disranter, User:Arnatorim, User:Samosterat, User:Hoogson, User:Narwhal2, along with whatever username(s) was/were supposedly blocked for vandalism in 2004. Whether this constitutes "something like a dozen," I'll leave for other editors to judge. Did you use some of these to edit the same articles in an overlapping fashion, or are you seriously expecting people to believe that you made each of these when the previous one was blocked in order to simply avoid blocks without using the multiple accounts abusively? Alephb ( talk) 12:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to provide some more context for anyone else passing by here:
Manipulating multiple accounts to give the appearance of added support for one's position in a consensus-building exercise is an extreme violation of community trust, which often earns editors a long block or site ban even if they only do it once. Ralphellis has done it at least three times since 2009 up to last month, and has separately created multiple accounts to engage in harassment, which I find especially disgusting. And they are continuing to try to obfuscate this history by suggesting missing logs and events and interactions which did not occur, all the while continuing to perpetuate the content dispute while blocked. As such, talk page access revoked. Good luck with your appeal to WP:UTRS in no less than six months. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))