User talk:Ridm

Two-Shade

Sorry I meant no offense by placing tags! They are merely a reminder in case you were to forget. :P Thank you very much for following through with the promissed expansion though. It is a nice change from other instances that are sadly rampant. If only all new Wikipedians were like you! Cheers and happy editing (I hope I haven't scared you of!) Calaka (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You may remove the tags when you deem the article to have met the tags requests and don't have to wait for me! Cheers.Calaka (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hey, we all have to eat sometimes! I will be on and off until early September, but I plan to improve and add on top of my previous edits. As for this specific article, well, it's not perfect but it's a start. As I've added several well-established sources and third-party references, while the subject is notable in its genre, I believe that the tags are no longer needed; though a second opinion wouldn't hurt. :) Cheers, Ridm (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SQRT5P1D2. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

Following an SPI report by Future Perfect at Sunrise, I was blocked after a CheckUser request concluded that I was "likely" a "sockpuppet" of another user.

I was engaged in a discussion regarding the definition of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in Macedonia's disambiguation page. The kingdom's linked article, defines Macedonia as "a kingdom in ancient Greece", referenced and verified by numerous sources on the subject, in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Several users, disagreed with adding "in Ancient Greece" for the term definition in the disambiguation page (i.e. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) or Macedon, a kingdom in Ancient Greece), because it feels "a bit POV" to them.

I addressed the matter and proved with their own words that they were being "a bit POV", according to Wikipedia's policies; instead, their only concern seems to be the disassociation of the term with anything Greek-related (see relevant conflicting quotes), despite the opening paragraph in the linked main article. Still, there was no proper explanation from their side and I broke down my argument in a logical NPOV manner.

My vocal objection to a POV "solution", triggered a surprising SPI (!), understandably a "technical" measure to discredit me, associating my presence with a topic-banned user, unknown to me. I dispelled the "evidence", giving clear explanations and welcomed any kind of investigation.

Future Perfect at Sunrise, a former administrator requesting the SPI, was recently "strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns". In addition, he "is subject to an editing restriction for one year" and should not make "any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith". Due to his disruptive behavior, he was "desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools", while upon regaining his administrator access, he "will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area".

Taivo, another user making unsubstantiated insinuations and insisting on POV edits, was also admonished for failure to comply with basic Wikipedia principles.

I hereby declare that my block is unjust and any attempt to associate me with any other Wikipedia user with a disruptive agenda, is opprobrious. I edit without using any means of hiding my data and I did not breach the sock puppetry policy, as my account is not "an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies".

I've been a registered editor for one day, already with a good number of constructive edits in diverse subjects, while creating two new pages from scratch.

The indicators related to the CheckUser findings, suggest that "likely" is a label with an erratic level of certainty. I fully understand the technicalities of these tools, but I also can't stress enough the failings of mechanical systems, presenting possibly misleading data and the subjectiveness of human-measurable qualities, such as the existance of similarities in linguistic patterns.

I'm quite confident that in good faith, the skills and level of expertise of the reviewer(s), can be instrumental in resolving this. Ridm (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer declined the unblock request, basing his decision on an essay concerning "behavioral evidence". This is not a policy document, but rather a controversial editor-created page, addressing views that never reached community consensus, through any decision mechanism. In addition, the inductive reasoning used to support the arguments in this essay, has been heavily criticized.

Furthermore, the issues raised in my appeal (such as POV-pushing in the discussion that triggered the SPI and the history of the person filing the request) were not admeasured and the reviewer engaged in incivility, mocking the "miraculous indepth knowledge" of my editing skills.

As the block imposed was not based on my content editing, but rather after using a crude subjective method of "establishing" "similarities" with another user (unsurprisingly opposed to the restricted, desysopped filing party's POV in a range of topics), it becomes apparent that it is a technical measure in order to promote certain user views in Macedonia-related articles (read above). Therefore, I wish to file a new unblock request. Ridm (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

See block appeal above

Decline reason:

Even without the checkuser evidence, there is substantial behavioral evidence that you are the same person as User:SQRT5P1D2 and it is far more specific in nature than merely being interested in the same topics, or than your miraculous indepth knowledge of the technical aspects of Wikipedia editing. Having reviewed both the style and content of your talkpage comments and that of SQRT5P1D2, it seems patently obvious that the two accounts are run by the same person. The checkuser result of "likely" is a nice additional bit of evidence, but the behavioral evidence is so strong that the checkuser seems to be superfluous in this case. Jayron32 03:32, 18 August 2009 (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.