User talk:TomPaul67

Welcome[edit]

Hello, TomPaul67! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't WikiLeaks[edit]

FYI, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no relation to each other - see WP:NOTLEAKS.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry for details on what this is. Basically, it is the misuse of multiple accounts and/or IP addresses in order to mislead others or evade bans or blocks, which is prohibited.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logging off for the day[edit]

This is a test edit TomPaul67 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajneesh Katiyar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Sitush (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally baseless comment. I will have to report you for violating the Wiki for harassing new users.

July 2011[edit]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2011 (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).

TomPaul67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are violating the policies by putting me on block. Show me the proof that I am a sock puppet. Now this is a blatant violation of your powers. I would like to know how can I report an admin for abuse of powers.TomPaul67 (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here you go. 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 10:59, 12 July 2011 (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.

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).

TomPaul67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That investigation was opened by another user as I have reported that user for 3RR violation. Zebedee is not being fair in this case. Can you look at that again? What you cited is a report by another user. There is no decision on that. Just a report by another user doesn't prove that I am a sock puppet. My report for a 3RR violation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Sitush_reported_by_User:TomPaul67_.28Result:_.29 TomPaul67 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An obscure topic suddenly becomes a hotbed, and one editor begins to make virtually identical edits immediately after another is blocked? Sounds like a WP:DUCK very clearly. Wait until the SPI is complete - as Zebdee says, he'll unblock you if it comes back as a massively technical impossibility (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 12 July 2011 (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.

The stylistic quacking seems obvious to me - if the SPI proves I'm wrong, I'll happily apologize and unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you being blocked indef on the grounds that you are partial to a certain opinion. Like I said earlier: You seek to establish what you believe is already true. I posted irrefutable evidence, and now you are saying that I am a sock, but as my writing style doesn't match, I am impersonating. Dude: Be ready to apologize, but I believe that it is an investigation done by your peers. So I see the light. :) Just because you don't want Sutish to be blocked for making 3RR violations, you have blocked me. This confirms my belief.

"An obscure topic suddenly becomes a hotbed, and one editor begins to make virtually identical edits immediately after another is blocked? Sounds like a WP:DUCK very clearly. Wait until the SPI is complete - as Zebdee says, he'll unblock you if it comes back as a massively technical impossibility " ------------------ I don't agree with your statement that this topic is an obscure one. I went through the logs and can clearly see that many users have been using the talk back feature. I demand an un-partial judgement in this case. Please let me know what is the process to report Boing! said Zebedee for gross violation of admin rights. TomPaul67 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By shutting such reasonable requests you are not getting anything other than a disgruntled user base.

TomPaul67 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must first remove the post "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sitush_reported_by_User:TomPaul67_.28Result:_.29" Zebedee as you are trying to influence the decision on the 3RR violation.

   I have now indef blocked User:TomPaul67 as a blatant sock of User talk:Prashantv79 - the quacking was deafening -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you not influencing the decision by saying that I was a sock puppet and you have blocked me. TomPaul67 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed my sockpuppet evidence on to User:Bwilkins, as I believe it is conclusive - the SPI will examine the technical evidence too, so I suggest you just wait for the outcome there. Should it prove you innocent of sockpuppetry, I'll be happy to help you file a report against me then - but for the moment, while you are blocked, you do not have access to the usual reporting channels. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

====[edit]

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).

TomPaul67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

TomPaul67 and Prashantv79 are Likely, while Ajneesh Katiyar is Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated to the other two. –MuZemike 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This page says likely and not definitely. So, I don't agree with your assessment that I am sock puppet of some user prashantv79. What about innocent until proven guilty.

Decline reason:

You can only have one unblock request at a time. (I may also mention a very good quote from the user Gerardw: It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2011 (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.

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).

TomPaul67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been reported as a sock unfairly.

Sitush (talk) had already posted why he filed a socks report against me:

Dare to have a look:

This is what Sutish wrote on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#Another_possible_sock . Go through this post carefully with an open mind. Someone is surprisingly familiar with policy - Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Sitush_reported_by_User:TomPaul67_.28Result:_.29. I am trying to get the SPI in before I get blocked, although I was not aware that I had exceeded 3RR & still do not consider it warring because there is an ongoing BRD discussion on the talk page: people are basically saying "well, I can comment there and immediately restore to the version I like", which is not how things work! - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  SPI now filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So how does this looks like a mockery of processes. Let me know how are you going to deal with this eye opener. Anyways, I have lost total faith in this admin business which seems to be the protector of those who make a mockery of this whole system. This user has clearly stated his reason for filing a complaint: " I am trying to get the SPI in before I get blocked, although I was not aware that I had exceeded 3RR". Are you happy now. TomPaul67 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether or not the sockpuppetry accusation is valid, your belligerent approach, attacking and accusing other editors and generally taking a battleground approach, is not what is needed on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (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.

TomPaul67 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee and SpacemanSpiff seem to be very favorable to this user. They are acting quickly and are blocking other accounts. Please open an investigation for these admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SpacemanSpiff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boing!_said_Zebedee

Power in the hands of right people is good. Don't make a mockery of the system by preying upon the very same people that make you powerful -- Quote

TomPaul67 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2011 (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).

TomPaul67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK. I understand. I will try to be more constructive. Can you un-block me and put me on some sort of probation. But, at least someone needs to look into the conduct of the user who reported me. And seeing the nature of the user, I am sure the user must have unfaily reported other users too

Decline reason:

It has been determined that you are a sock of Prashantv79. If you want to request unblock, you must do so on behalf of your main account. At this point, your only remaining option is to write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. It would be absurd to reward people for socking during an unblock discussion, so I'm disabling your talk page access. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (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.

I think the technical "likely" result of the SPI CheckUser investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajneesh Katiyar, coupled with the compelling bahavioural evidence, makes it pretty much conclusive that this editor is indeed a sock of User:Prashantv79. And I think that, coupled with the editor's persistence in using unblock requests to attack others, means it's time for Talk page access to be suspended here and any further unblock requests to be directed to his original account. If any reviewing admin wants to see my assessment of the behavioural clues, I'll be happy to send it to them (while wishing to avoid WP:BEANS) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as this editor is also sending me accusations via email, I suggest it's time for access to that facility to be suspended too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

======[edit]

I am not sending you any accusations. I just emailed you as per Wiki guidelines. Please remove the guidelines if you all believe that users shouldn't contest unfair blocks. Please delete this account (my account) permanently as this account has clearly shown what is abuse of powers as has been evident by Zebedee.

TomPaul67 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

=======[edit]

You seemed to eager to help Sutish. Though I have mailed you all the evidence, you seem to ignore anything against your trusted buddy. WikiPedia should look into NPOV. Especially into yours and Sutish's conduct. By shutting me down you won't achieve anything. You are too quick to block users who don't appear to agree to you.

- Paul TomPaul67 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been repeatedly reporting against Zebedee and still no action is being taken against this editor. All this editor is doing is blocking any user who doesn't agree with Sutish's point of view. Hmm.. Great! Now don't redirect this page to anyone else. I am not a socket puppet. Just kill my access. That should be fine. :) . I hope you do see the light at the end of the tunnel, and I hope you have a great career ahead. I will pray for you.

TomPaul67 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]