User talk:FinanceOnWikipedia

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. According to this accusation I am connected to the User:EnkiNinhursag. I am not, nor have I ever operated any other Wikipedia account than this one. If you investigate my edit history you will see that I have made edits to other articles that have nothing to do with the pages related to my sockpuppetry accusations. I simply insisted on not describing Gideon as a real person, which I could not find any evidence for. I also requested that the Bible be not described as holy, since no text or collection of texts can objectively be said to be so. This was described as trolling by User:Sro23, but I would like to ask any decent man to defend how an insistence upon sticking to objective truths can be considered trolling. As the world's largest online encyclopedia, I believe we should be concerned with objective truths only, and that is all I have done. Apparently some of the same claims have been made by User:EnkiNinhursag, which is why I have now been blocked, I do not however have anything to do with this account. Please unblock me.

Accept reason:

I see no compelling evidence of this account being a sockpuppet of Gonzales John. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————

{{Checkuser needed}}. Please, compare this account to Gonzales John and socks. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious duck and was already at SPI.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————

@Vanjagenije: From a CU standpoint, they appear to be

Unrelated. —DoRD (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————

FinanceOnWiki here. My message is two-part. As I understand the user who originally blocked me is Danish (which I am too), so my message to him is written in Danish.

1) To User:Atlan Please believe me when I say that I have no connection to Gonzales John. I am a normal guy, who wanted to make some changes, and they may have happened to coincide with what Gonzales has written, but that doesn't make me a sockpuppet. I can confirm my identity to any admin who would wish me to, and you will see that my name is not John Gonzales (or whatever the real name of that account might be). I would love to compare my edits to his, just to be able to accommodate your concern, but all it says is "User Blocked" when I visit Gonzales' page and as such I am unable to. Please let me know if there is anything you would like me to do in order to provide evidence that I am completely unrelated to all other Wikipedia users.

2) To Favonian Jeg henviser til User:Vanjagenijes kommentar, som bekræfter at jeg "from a CU standpoint" (ved ikke helt hvad det betyder, men går ud fra, at det er noget teknisk med IP-adresser og sådan) ikke ser ud til at være relateret til Gonzales John. Jeg ved ikke, om min e-mail-adresse er synlig for dig som administrator, men ellers vil jeg som sagt med glæde fremsende en form for dokumentation, der bekræfter, at min identitet ikke er relateret til Gonzales på nogen måde.

–

2) To Favonian I refer to User:Vanjagenijes comment, which confirms that I "from a CU standpoint" do not seem to be related to Gonzales John. i do not know if my e-mail address is visible to yo as an administrator, but I will happily send you any documentation confirming that my identity is not in any way related to Gonzales.

——————————————————————————————————————————

I simply look at behavioral similarities. "Confirming" your identity is pointless, as we have no idea who Gonzales John is. Also, this is English Wikipedia. No need to speak Danish.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————

To User:Atlan I don't know what measure you have to confirm people's identity, it was an attempt to respond as nicely and helpfully as I could. I don't see how my choice of language on my personal talk page is relevant for anything; I edit both English and Danish articles, and see no reason not to utilize my Danish when I can. The message was specifically for Favonian. I am just a young student from Copenhagen, who cares for the proliferation of knowledge in society and believe in the Wikipedia project and the ideology behind it. And now that we are at behavioral patterns, you will see that my edits to other pages have been fair, simple, sourced, and honest. That behavioral pattern should indicate just as much that I am no sockpuppet, as the apparent similarities to Gonzales indicate that I am. (FinanceOnWikipedia) 5:22PM December 6, 2016 (GTM+1).

——————————————————————————————————————————

This is English Wikipedia, where we converse in English. If you want to be stubborn and uncooperative about it, it just gives people less reason to consider your unblock request. Suit yourself. As for behavioral evidence: It is fairly compelling despite your low edit count, including the beansy evidence that I will not share here.--Atlan (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————————

To User:Atlan I would say I have been very accommodating and friendly, especially considering the distrust and pedanticism I have been met with. I was cooperative enough to offer my personal information for any admin interested, and I was cooperative enough to translate my Danish message to English, to accommodate the frankly quite impolite remark you made about it. And even when I wrote to you, that I did not see the point in only writing in English, I still upheld a civil tone, as I believe I still do in this message. I also don't see how anyone who translates their message upon request could be considered stubborn at all.

More to everyone: I lastly cannot see any reason why someone would spend their time defending a sockpuppet account as much as I have. If I really used sockpuppets, why not just create a new account? I feel like I have argued as well against the evidence as I could, despite not having access to Gonzales's edits, and as such despite not being aware of how similar the edits may or may not be. Furthermore, the 'Bible' edit wasn't even a real edit, it was just a suggestion and all in all I feel like the action taken against me is just so harsh.

If anyone would like me to take any further action to confirm my account's authenticity, feel free to request so and I will make sure to be as helpful as I can.

(FinanceOnWikipedia) 7:02PM December 6, 2016 (GTM+1).

As the person who initiated the SPI against this user, I think I owe them an apology. Their edits to Gideon really reminded me of Gonzales John, but thinking about it a little more, I realize I was quick to make assumptions because there are actually a lot of differences between FinanceOnWikipedia and GJ. For one, I don't think I've ever seen a GJ sock put this much effort into requesting an unblock, normally once he's caught he gives up and admits it. I no longer believe this is a sock. Sro23 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added the translation after I said something about it, which I didn't notice and which you hadn't mentioned before now. I also never requested you to translate the message, which you imply. At any rate, it doesn't change the fact that you are required to speak English here and that is all I was trying to point out.--Atlan (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]