User talk:FuManChoo: Difference between revisions

The user of this account also once had User:Deuterium as an account.

This message was sent at 05:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium, we've been through this before: see User talk:ANecessaryWeevil. As explained before, WP:SOCK says you cannot create sockpuppet accounts to "Avoid scrutiny from other editors". Specifically:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

Since you have used this account to edit in the exact same areas, topics, and articles as your previous account, and to oppose editors you have previously opposed, I can see no legitimate reason for having this account. If you wish to switch from your old account to this new account, or wish to publicly declare that you are now using two accounts, so that accommodations for this can be made, please let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am only using one account, this one. It is not a sockpuppet and I don't have the password to my previous account anyway. I am not using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" as JayJG assumes, in violation of WP:AGF

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am only using one account, this one. It is not a sockpuppet and I don't have the password to my previous account anyway. I am not using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" as JayJG assumes, in violation of WP:AGF |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am only using one account, this one. It is not a sockpuppet and I don't have the password to my previous account anyway. I am not using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" as JayJG assumes, in violation of WP:AGF |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am only using one account, this one. It is not a sockpuppet and I don't have the password to my previous account anyway. I am not using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" as JayJG assumes, in violation of WP:AGF |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I am using one account. This one. As such it is not a sockpuppet.

I lost the password for Deuterium and I wanted a change of name anyway. Assuming that I'm using this account to "avoid the scrutiny of my fellow editors" is a violation of AGF. I have never said that I'm not Deuterium.

Unblock this account immediately. FuManChoo 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON. UNBLOCK THIS ACCOUNT. I HAVE ADMITTED I AM DEUTERIUM. I DO NOT HAVE THE PASSWORD TO THAT ACCOUNT SO I COULDNT USE IT IF I WANTED TO. STOP ABUSING YOUR PRIVILEGES, JAYJG. FuManChoo 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting this sockpuppet; you denied the last one. Why don't you just get yourself mailed a new password? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never entered an email address into the Deuterium account. UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS BLOCK IS AN ABUSE OF PRIVILEGES AND AGAINST WIKIPEDIA POLICY.

IT DOESNT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE RULES THAT YOU CAN BLOCK SOMEONE JUST FOR LOSING THEIR PASSWORD AFTER A LONG HIATUS FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. UNBLOCK ME NOW. FuManChoo 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that you lied again JayJG. I NEVER denied that User:ANecessaryWeevil was a sockpuppet. This is more violation of WP:AGF from you. Again, UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF YOU PRIVILEGES. IT DOESNT SAY ANYWHERE IN THE RULES THAT YOU CAN BLOCK SOMEONE JUST FOR LOSING THEIR PASSWORD AFTER A LONG HIATUS FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA. FuManChoo 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter or provide an e-mail account for this sockpuppet, I'll try to get you mailed a new password for your Deuterium account. How's that? (P.S. This amounts to a denial). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to and don't have to provide Wikipedia with my email account.

According to WP:SOCK, sockpuppets are allowed if you admit them. There are many valid reasons for having sockpuppets and many people use them. I have never used sockpuppets for invalid reasons. I have admitted that this is a second account and that my prior account was deuterium. There is nothing in WP policy that says you can block me just for forgetting my password or having a sockpuppet.

Unblock me NOW. FuManChoo 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You only admitted it after you were caught. Why didn't you use the User:Deuterium2 account you created instead? Clearly you were attempting to evade detection. I think I've made you a reasonable offer here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again show me where in Wikipedia Policy it says that you can block people simply for losing their password?

Again I do not want to provide Wikipedia with my email address and as far as policy goes I don't have to.

Again this is not a sockpuppet since I'm only using one account at a time, so it doesn't even qualify for WP:SOCK and I have not used it for any invalid purposes. Sockpuppets are ALLOWED for many valid purposes.

This is part of a campaign of intimidation and suppression you have waged against me (and other pro-Palestinian editors) in blatant violation of WP:AGF and your responsibilites as an admin.

For example, you voted to delete Israel-South Africa relations ([1]), a highly encyclopedic article authored entirely by me, despite the fact that it's extremely well sourced and factual. You have never explained why you voted to delete, but it's obvious you are pursuing a vendetta against me for my point of view.

You haven't heard the last of this. FuManChoo 21:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the issue up on the Administrator's Noticeboard for broader input: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deuterium. Let's see how the community feels. You still haven't explained why you don't want a password for your real account; that alone strengthens the point that you're using this new account to avoid scrutiny. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More lies from you. I HAVE said that I want a password for Deuterium. I do NOT want to give Wikipedia my email address. FuManChoo 21:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you haven't seem to read this part of WP:SOCK I will reproduce it here.

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

• Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, some users may use an alternate account when editing under these conditions in order to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.

• Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

FuManChoo 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've entered an email address in this account. Email me my password for Deuterium NOW like you said you wouldJayjg or unblock me.

I still want an explanation for why I am being forced to only ever use one account, a policy which IS NOT WIKIPEDIA POLICY. FuManChoo 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the? Why did User:Scobell302 revert my acceptance of JayJG's offer? FuManChoo 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor I emailed about this issue has advised me to reproduce what I wrote him here, so I might as well since I don't seem to be either getting unblocked or getting a password for the Deuterium account (like JayJG said he would provide me.) This is what I wrote:

For a long time I edited as Deuterium (during which I wrote some fairly good material such as Israel-South Africa relations and Palestinian textbooks) then I went on a long hiatus of months during which I didn't access wikipedia at all. When I came back I had forgotten the password for that account (which I never entered an email address into), so I created a new account instead.

JayJG has blocked me for sockpuppet abuse, despite the fact that I'm only using one account now (this one) and I have never used sockpuppets for forbidden purposes. He is now demanding that I go back to my previous account. As far as I'm aware this enforced original-account-only policy is not part of Wikipedia policy -- which explicitly condones the use of sockpuppets for some purposes -- and I've never seen this punitive blocking happen to anyone else before.

FuManChoo 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you came back to Wikipedia you in no way identified your previous account, and only admitted it when outed. Have you seen the section of WP:SOCK I quoted above? I'll quote it again:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

Until you read, understand, and accept this, I don't see how we can move forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy, but it doesn't apply here. My Deuterium account had made many good contributions, such as Israel-South Africa relations and the only reason I changed to this account (as I have repeatedly said) is because I lost the password to my former account and hadn't edited Wikipedia for MONTHS.

Besides,WP:SOCK also condones sockpuppets if you wish to separate your edits from your identity. I posted personally indentifiable information as Deuterium and now wish to keep my edits to Wikipedia separate from my identity. Can you read, understand, and accept this?

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

* A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

And are you reneging on your offer to give me my old account back if I entered an email address. Was that just another lie, JayJG?FuManChoo 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deuterium account mostly edit warred, and got blocked an astonishing number of times in a fairly brief period. Your current excuses really don't wash, nor do your continued violations of WP:CIVIL. Unless you give me some indication that you are willing to accept Wikipedia policies, including WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL, I don't think there's much point in this. It's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept Wikipedia policies and always have been. Now give me my account back. FuManChoo 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also my Deuterium account didn't "mostly edit war", I made many valuable contributions with it such as Israel-South Africa relations, Anti-Arabism and Palestinian textbooks off the top of my head. The fact that are misrepresenting my contributions shows that you have some kind of vendetta against me. Why are you the only admin to continuously block me for alleged sockpuppet abuse? Perhaps you should leave this matter up to other admins since you are so personally involved FuManChoo 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what was the issue with the account ANecessaryWeevil and what was the basis on which it was determined to be a sockpuppet, so there may be something here that I am missing. Still, Jay, assuming he is only actively using one account, I fail to see the problem. I see no evidence that he did anything fraudulent in abandoning the Deuterium account and using this one instead. I am unaware of any way he could have renewed access to an account whose password he forgot and where he hadn't given an email address. Yes, it would have been a good move if he had linked the user pages and user talk page to one another, but I see no particular reason to believe that his failure to do so had deceptive intent. I gather that the first time someone brought it up, he acknowledged it. The old account was in good standing, so there is no issue of evading a ban. There is no overlap in the periods of using the two accounts.

Jay, since Fu says that he can no longer access the Deuterium account, wouldn't it make more sense to:

1. unblock this account
2. block the Deuterium account
3. ask Fu to put short notes at the top of both of the relevant user pages and talk pages explaining the relationship between the accounts
4. get back to working on writing an encyclopedia.

I would also add that the Deuterium account was used for about 5 months and never seems to have been involved in discussions over policy. It is perfectly possible that he was unaware of what would have been the really right way to do this.

Fu, if ANW was a sockpuppet, then please knock it off. I'm supporting you on this right now, but if Jay agrees to what I've suggested, and you start sockpuppeting, that will now reflect on me and I will support a permanent hard ban, if only so that no one will make the mistake of thinking I've condoned such conduct. - Jmabel | Talk 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, agreed. I just want to get back to being able to contribute to Wikipedia. I have no desire to use sockpuppets again, and I haven't ever used them abusively. FuManChoo 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, I had e-mailed one of the developers asking him to help out with the password situation, but if you think this is a better solution, I'll give it a go. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that what you wanted to do to me was so unusual and outside normal policy the you had to email a developer to get it done, rather than just using a standard procedure or something. I guess that's what happens when you single people out for special treatment. FuManChoo 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I've blocked the other account and unblocked this one. Please tag both user and talk pages, as indicated by Jmabel above. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you block me for not carrying out your demands, I can't edit my user pages or Deuterium's pages because my IP is still autoblocked from editing, thanks to your block.

I'll update my pages as soon as I can. I have tagged this talk page. FuManChoo