Lee-ann-25
- Hi Lee-ann-25, and welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your note you left at this page. Unfortunately, that's a pretty high traffic, specialist page for maintenance issues, so I had to remove your note as it was out of place. However—their is a place for questions such as yours. What we call The Teahouse is adept at guiding people around the often-hidden complexities of WP, and you will get a sympathetic and probably detailed reply to your question. Again, sorry about this, but it's the best way of getting the information you need. Take care! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Mind you, you need to stop edit-warring on Ivo Prokopiev; I've removed everything that's currently unsourced, and have not reinserted the material you removed purely on the grounds of it being WP:UNDUE. Your best bet is to open a discussion on the talk page for now. Cheers, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 13:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Lee-ann-25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This letter is to object the blocking of my page and the reasons it was done with. However I am a new user and I still learn the rules for editing text and repairing unbalanced positions and articles I claim that I have never committed misuse of multiple accounts. Nor have I edited anything without citing reliable sources - most of the quoted sources are official registers and institutional websites. This can be confirmed by my edit history. That is why I request you to unblock my account.Even more there are no evidences proving the statement that I have violated Wikipedia's rules
Decline reason:
Sorry, but based on the evidence I found after looking into your request - there exists enough similarities between your account and another that the suspicion of abusing multiple accounts (either directly by you) or between yourself and with collaboration of another (meat puppetry) is present, legitimate, and enough for me to rule that the original block placed on your account was with legitimate cause and with enough evidence to demonstrate its validity. Your block will expire in six days; you'll be welcome to continue editing after it does. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:47, 9 March 2018 (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.
- NeilN - What other accounts are involved that I can take a look at? I looked for an SPI on this user and no sub-page with this username exists there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Gorgelee78. There's also a SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyubomirab. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN - Oh perfect; thanks for responding with the links :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN - See the comment I just added to the SPI here. TL;DR: I see similarities that add to the suspicions and described those similarities in-depth in the comment. Ponyo is almost done checking anyways, so we'll know soon... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Yes, I actually wasn't aware of the SPI until I clicked "What links here" for this page. Even if the CU is negative, there's probably meatpuppetry here. --NeilN talk to me 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN - See the comment I just added to the SPI here. TL;DR: I see similarities that add to the suspicions and described those similarities in-depth in the comment. Ponyo is almost done checking anyways, so we'll know soon... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN - Oh perfect; thanks for responding with the links :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, I have to disagree with your statements because I neither have anything to do with those profiles, nor I know those profiles. There CANNOT be any connection between those profiles and my profile because we DO NOT have such connection and I am sure that there canot be any evidences against me.--Lee-Ann-25
- CheckUser never lies. Quickfingers (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
JamesBWatson Thank you for giving me details on the COI policy. However I don't think that I am the right audience as I have already both read the rules and declared that I am not in a conflict of interest situation. May be you should consider addressing another user Lee-Ann-25
Lee-ann-25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello @Oshwah:, I just logged into WP after a long period of absence due to my graduation thesis. Imagine my surprise when I found out that I have been blocked by User:Vanjagenije with no reasons given. Nor explanations. The block was submitted more than a month after my last activity in WP without any violence of the rules, committed by me. Please reconsider this action and ublock me. Thank you in advance for your help. I do not know who else to ask for help and am really shocked by the behavior towards me here. Lee-ann-25 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Lee-ann-25
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 06:59, 11 May 2018 (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.
- Actually, the reason is clearly stated in the block log. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Vanjagenije and Yunshui 雲. I have checked the block log and unfortunately I still don't find any other reasons for this action besides the ones, stated on 9 March here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyubomirab for which I was blocked for 1 week. Does this mean that I am being punished for a second time for one and the same thing (please look up to the beginning of this page)? Is this a regular WP policy? Because I don't find it in the WP rules and policies. As for the contributions I've made before being blocked for undefined time - please check my activity and you will see that I have contributed pretty much to the WP principle of neutral point of view in the articles. That is why I ask you one more time to reconsider the decision to block my account and unblock it. Lee-ann-25
- You are blocked for WP:sockpuppetry/wp:meatpuppetry. Yes, it is standard Wikipedia policy to block sockpuppets indefinitely. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, GeneralizationsAreBad (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email), Ivanvector (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email), Richwales (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email), unfortunately I still cannot understand why I am being blocked twice for one suspected violence (I call it suspected because it wasn't proven that I have been participating in sockpuppetry and I state that I wasn't. I was just using patterns while studying how to edit in WP). Yet I have already been blocked 3 months ago for one week for the same violence you block me now for indefinite time. I DID think, when joining Wikipedia, that this is a place and a community where democratic principles - such as Neutral Point of View and One punishment for one violence, rule. Please show me the WP rule according to which I can be punished twice and PLEASE - RECONSIDER MY BLOCKING. If you review my activity you will find out that the only thing I have been pursuing in my activity as WP editor was the truth and the Neutral Point of View. Lee-ann-25