User talk:Lepercon

Welcome!

Hello, Lepercon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Buzzirk, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Buzzirk[edit]

A tag has been placed on Buzzirk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are also being blocked for the creation of a sockpuppet account in an attempt to repost spam. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. PMDrive has not responded to my unblock request for over 30days that I sent via private message. I was blocked for writing an article on "buzzirk" without citing sources. Got it, add sources. I would agree that not citing sources is criteria for speedy deletion of articles, but an indefinite block? And not responding to an unblock request? Really? I also don't think one uncited article (which was written and deleted within 24hrs... not really enough time for me to gather sources) is criteria for labeling me a sockpuppet. Also, I'm not sure how PMDrive defends his action labeling me as having multiple accounts (insert fancy wikipedia term here). If I had multiple accounts, why wouldn't I just ditch this account and use the other? Its not like I have a huge history on this account... I did some digging and I have been linked to Bob hawke. I'd like to know how, as I have no idea who that is. Am I being punked? Lepercon (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've reviewed your edits, and they don't seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's goals: Wikipedia is not a place to get back at companies that you feel have wronged you; it is an encyclopedia. Since your goals don't seem to be parallel to Wikipedia's goals, an unblock doesn't appear to be helpful at this time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:17, 23 October 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.

FisherQueen: I have no interest in "getting back at" Buzzirk, as I had no personal contact with the company other than word of mouth information. I wrote an article on their business practices and listed what other websites claim Buzzirk provides (Had the article not been deleted, I would have written more). I am not the only person who has found problems with the company's "claims." After my article appeared and disappeared, CTIA rescinded their award to ZERO1, the parent company of Buzzirk (http://www.prlog.org/10304086-buzzirk-mobile-zero1-ctia-award-rescinded.html). Buizzirk is also under investigation by the FTC for being a pyramid scheme as a result of citizens of the internet like myself that have the due diligence to research questionable companies. I would disagree with FisherQueen's decision that my actions are not inline with Wikipedia. As I understand it, it is a central place for knowledge. If Wikipedia is not a place to list a company that is growing in popularity and outline their business structure, then what is it?

In fact, the reason that Buzzirk was able to squander 1,000s of people out of money was there was no central place for answers on their company. I was hoping that my article would encourage others to share information they had on the company as well. It sounds like that's exactly what would have happened as my account has been flagged as being a sockpuppet - I interpret that as being very key sign that others have a similarity view. Is there not a way to see that the other person that posted the article is not near my IP address?

The "Bob hawke" account recreated the same article you had added at Buzzirk, with the same text, several days after the first incarnation was deleted. The assumption that the two accounts were held by the same editor does not seem to have been unreasonable, although it could have been incorrect. What sorts of edits do you intend to make on Wikipedia if unblocked? Dekimasuよ! 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the text re posted verbtim? Is there a way I can read it? To answer your question, I have a genuine interest in working with the photography wikibook. Lepercon (talk) 20:35, 23 October 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).

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

Request reason:

See my talk page.

Decline reason:

The technical records for Bob hawke have expired, but I agree with Fisherqueen and Dekimasu - it seems extremely unlikely that that account was controlled by someone else acting independently. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:50, 23 October 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.

Yes, they were the same, word for word, except that User:Bob hawke added some additional material to the end of the previous version. I cannot think of any way that could happen by coincidence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 23 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Is it unreasonable to believe that someone copied the page I wrote and added information to it? I am not familiar with the technical capabilities of wiki, but couldn't someone see what I wrote and add stuff to it to make sure the new article written doesn't get deleted as well? Moreover, assume I did repost the article under a different name with more information (which is absolutely not the case, but is what I have been accused of) does that deem a Wikipedia ban? I could have written whatever was written by the user under my own name without any repercussion whatsoever.
A) Given how easy it must be to see what I wrote on an article that has been deleted, I find it unlikely that I would use multiple accounts to attempt to manipulate wiki into accepting an article. I would also argue that if my motive was to sockpuppet (is that a verb?) the system, wouldn't I have been more likely to write articles on the other companies related to Buzzirk instead as a way to hide what I was doing?
Put differently, what would stop me from looking up any of the articles that administrators have written that have been deleted for whatever reason and re-posting it under a different name? Since the intent (malicious or accidental) cannot be determined is it fair to assume malicious intent?
B) All the definitions of "sockpuppetry" on both the internet at large and wiki cite "repeated" use of multiple accounts. In this case, there is only one instance. Again, I still deny ever using the other account that I am accused of using.
C) I would argue that it would be likely that someone could have been acting independently in writing the 2nd article as the time I wrote my article (i have no idea when that was) it was around the same time as a massive social marketing push.
D) It feels like this is a witch hunt. I have reason to believe that if I confess to using the other account (as is suggested in the "guide to get your account unblocked") I'll get a stern lecture as to why that's bad, but the account will be unblocked if I say I promise not to do it again. The Crucible anyone <rel>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible</rel>?
Really, I'm frustrated because I have been falsely accused of actions that I have no way of seeing the evidence against me. I can only take your word for it.
Rest assured, I will be appealing subsequent declines to the arbitration committee. I feel that would be a massive waste of my and the committee's time. Lepercon (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with the analysis of FisherQueen and Hersfold above. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:34, 24 October 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.

For more information the timeline of this company see the google search trend: [1]

Also, Wikipedia defines misuse of a sockpuppet as: In summary, alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. The misuse of an alternate account is likely to lead to a block or a ban.

Again, i deny that I ever used a sockpuppet account; however, even if that were true, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being blocked, much less, banned because the alternate account was not used "avoid scrutiny" or "mislead" or "deceive other editors" or "edit project-related discussions" or "make disruptive edits" or "distort consensus" or "stir up controversy" or "circumvent sanctions."

Also, [2]

And be sure not to bite the newcomers [3] Lepercon (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lepercon (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if true, then this would be considered deceiving other editors and is blockable per our policy on sock puppetry. Also, WP:BITE is not an excuse to run wild throughout the site without consequences. MuZemike 20:10, 24 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I appeal my wiki ban based on the following two criteria. 1) I am not using, and never have used, another account on Wikipedia. 2) Even I was, I have yet to see any evidence the combination of my account with the other account has caused Wikipedia harm in any way whatsoever. "Use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia is sometimes permitted and sometimes prohibited, depending on the circumstances and the reasons for the additional accounts. Anyone who uses multiple accounts in good faith is not violating any policies, shall face no action, and no attempts shall be made to determine if such accounts are linked." In short: I would have gained no benefit from re posting the article from a different account.

Decline reason:

Neither of your requests have addressed the main reason for your block--nearly all of your edits were promotional. Talk page disabled. Blueboy 96 02:10, 1 November 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.

Ban appeal request[edit]

Lepercon has asked the Ban Appeal Subcommittee of ArbCom to review this block. This doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for BASC as the various community options have not yet run their course. That said, I have the following observations:

The block looks good. The burden of proof is "balance of probability"; that is, whether something is "more likely than not" to have happened.
Using this test, the probability that Bob hawke - a new account making a single edit to restore verbatim an obscure deleted article - is unconnected to Lepercon is remote.
The block meets sock which says "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion".
Noting that an indefinite block means "not of a fixed duration" rather than "without end", it is obviously for the admin corps to determine when an indefinite block for what seems to be a first offence should be lifted and under what, if any, terms.

Roger Davies ^talk 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I referenced the "don't bite the new comers" I meant, what are my appeal options? Assume for a moment, that any one of you have been accused of being a sockpuppet because someone re posted something you wrote. What would you do?

Seriously, all the research I've done so far suggests there is a very very simple IP check that admins have access to (supposedly its used to confirm sockpuppets using IP addresses). Can one of you PLEASE just type my username in the machine and get this over with?

Lepercon (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH COME ON! Even Roger Davies has a sock account!?!? At this point, I'm irate if only because I don't have a sock account!

Nope, I have an alternate account. Which, incidentally, I've publicly declared and never used for article edits. Roger Davies ^talk 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as someone who doesn't live on wikipedia, I am unfamiliar with the differences between "alternate account" and "sockpuppet account" and wikipedia uses the same image of puppet on your page as well. An administrator's comments above suggests that any "alternate account" is a violation and deserving of a nasty name like "sock-puppet." MuZemike: "Actually, if true, then this would be considered deceiving other editors and is blockable per our policy on sock puppetry."

An "alternate account" is another account used for legitimate purposes (such as editing in public places where your main account would be too risky to use). A "sockpuppet (account)" is an account whose sole purpose is to violate Wikipedia policy in some form or another. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I was not using the Buzzirk article as SPAM, advertising, or Promotion. If you could (can you?, someone out-there (PMDrive) claims to have read it) you would clearly see that what I wrote is neither in favor of the company nor against it. I was trying to what wikipedia is meant to do: be a center of information on something important. The company (at the time) was either pioneering a revolutionary product that would change how all of use the internet, or was a pyramid scheme. It is now known to be pyramid scheme (at least by most people, it is still under federal investigation) I agree that I should have cited more sources, etc. But if someone reads that article as promoting the company, they are very misguided individuals. Lepercon (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't a positive depiction of the company, but the definition of "spam" doesn't cover only positive advertising — it covers anything where the intended purpose of the piece is to influence public perception of a company for better or worse. An aggrieved customer's essay about what a horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad company Widgets Inc. is counts as spam too, if it's posted in an inappropriate venue like Wikipedia articlespace. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most promotional accounts leave once.[edit]

They are blocked or use sockpuppets and rarely use talk pages, you seem to show some proof of independency. While the evidence is strong against you, I will be watching this page and come by if it gets out of hand. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

I have received your e-mailed requesst for unblock; why you asked me personally is not clear, as I have neither blocked you nor refused to unblock you, nor am I an Arbitrator. Perhaps you contacted several uninvolved admins simultaneously. I have looked at your situation. You created an article which, after you made a number of edits to it, was correctly deleted as spam. The article was re-created, word for word, by a user editing under a different username, who has made no other edits. As the article had been deleted the only way that this could have been done is by downloading a saced copy from a PC, or re-typing a previously saved copy. It is not clear to me how an uninvolved editor could be expected to do either of these things. I do not therefore find your denial credible, and do not feel that an unblock is appropriate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's adminshopping — I got an e-mail, too. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected so, as surmised above. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]