User talk:Hackneyhound

Welcome

---

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Mo ainm~Talk 17:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Carlingford Lough. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles restrictions

The article Carlingford Lough, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

Mo ainm~Talk 17:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hackneyhound, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlingford Lough

Not sure what is going on Hackneyhound but these edit are vandalism of Carlingford Lough: [1] [2]. Perhaps your account has been comprised? Bjmullan (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't think that it was intentional and I let the first one go, but after seeing the second one I thought that something was wrong with your account. Please be assured that I don't think that you are a vandal but was concerned that your account might have been compromised. BTW my prediction on the rugby result was right! Still a great game but England was the stronger team. Bjmullan (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at your recent edit. This is the third time you have added characters to other parts of the thread. Do you need a new keyboard? Bjmullan (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, this time adding an o to the word would, see here. Just a couple of other things; can you please sign your comments with four ~ and also indent it makes reading and following threads is easier. You indent using the semicolon. Bjmullan (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Reply

Hello, Hackneyhound. You have new messages at NorthernCounties's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Misleading edit summary

This edit summary is misleading and also breaches WP:CIVIL. There is no one single user refusing to compromise. You have been unable to put forward a proposal which others can agree to so you have decided to make the change against the current stable consensus. This is against WP policy and any change against consensus will be reverted. Bjmullan (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Troubles remedies

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

You have engaged in aggressive editing and apparent POV-pushing at Carlingford Lough and its talk page. Since your account was only created on 24 February, it raises the question whether you are here to actually benefit the encyclopedia. Nationalist turmoil does not help progress here. I'm sure you know there are many articles about Ireland that can be edited and improved without causing any disturbance at all. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the diffs? I have joined in on talkpage discussion and also tried to gauge consensus through "reaching consensus through editing". Please do not interpret this as something that it is not.Hackneyhound (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to disrupt the project as you are doing HJ_Mitchell#misleading here and here. Making frivolous reports can result in blocks as the other SPA has discovered. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so am I right in thinking that you were on a 6 month probation for constructive edits? Please go away.

This account has 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 this account is not a sock puppet, and you 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (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).

Hackneyhound (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 sock of any other user. I have not seen any evidence or proof or an investigation. This block is based on pissy suspicion as nothing more. Just lazy adminship and poor judgement.Hackneyhound (talk) 10:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Name calling will not get you unblocked. TNXMan 14:13, 29 March 2012 (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 have not called anyone anything. I have simply said that there is no evidence against me. Please advise how I can defend myself against an investigation that never happened. Wikipedia has become a big fat joke in my eyes.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

please advise as to how I can appeal this block as I have seen no evidence presented to show that I am a sock. I have not been notified of an investigation. Please show me who I am a sock of and evidence against me.Hackneyhound (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below; I've reviewed the behavioral evidence myself, and I find it rather convincing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 31 March 2012 (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.

Hackneyhound

• Man has the right to hear the evidence against him. Yourself and User:Gravyring make a lot of edits to the same article - indeed you revert other people to support each other's edits. You sound like each other. Checkuser says that you come from the same city. Interestingly, one of you only ever edits on a pc, the other only ever edits on his mobile phone. I have a distinct suspicion that you are User:Factocop, who also comes from the same city, sounds like you, edited this article in exactly the same way, never uses edit summaries on talkpages. He edits only from work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I live in a city with a population of 10 or so million. I wouldn't say never uses an edit summary because that is nor correct. My first edits were on w completely different page to Gravyring and I did not come across this user until 9 days after. I only went to the carlingford Lough page to check the template. Edit in the same way? I am not sure how you can gauge that, and then being linked to another user factocop is clutching at straws. If anything Bjmullan and Domer should be investigated as they have just as much a relationship as myself and Gravyring. I guess my only mistake is not spreading my edits and learning all wiki policy. I do not see any real evidence. And even looking at Factocop account, they have been blocked for long time. Are you telling me they have made only 1 unblock request in that time ans that coincides with my first edit on 27th? This is a block based on nothing. I'm really annoyed about this now. Ohh and there was also a period where Gravy did not edit for 11 days. Hackneyhound (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, I still have not seen any evidence other than a hunch and a suspicion. If this is all it takes to get blocked I can see the cause of sockpuppetry is rooted with admins. Please can you provide "check user" findings and diffs. Then check the contributions by domer48 and Bjmullan on the same page and tell me the difference. And you are wrong. I am using a netbook tablet. Please advise?Hackneyhound (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish checkuser data. In your case, the results would say  Possible, and "behavioral evidence will have to be the determinant here". --jpgordon^::==( o ) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. So I'm leaving this for other admins to review whether the editing is sufficiently similar to warrant the finding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Elen, I would at least expect you to look at this diff [3]. Domer has made an edit to a stable version of a page I had been editing on making the same edit as at Carlingford Lough. Typical. And an interesting observation [4]. I don't see how myself and Gravy have been blocked yet you let 2 obvious socks in Domer and Bj tag team on many contentious articles. Why? If tag teaming is a trait of docking then please look at the diffs between Domer and Bj and let me know how their actions are any different from the edits made by myself and Gravy. Please tell me? And the checkuser  Possible. All that tells me is someone else in a city of 10 million edits on troubles related articles. That's not evidence, that is just odds and evens. Hackneyhound (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With conclusive behavioral evidence a Possible result on CU cannot be contested. It's a combination of examining edits and demeanor and examining the underlying technical evidence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hound, just a quick point on the above edit by Domer, you removed it to begin with, so to state it was the stable when you edited it out is a bit odd. BTW I am sure you wont want this left on your talkpage so I expect, as you have done with the previous addition of this information from Domer. If you think admins dont read what you delete aswell as what you write you are mistaken. Murry1975 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the Lough Neagh page was stable for a month. I removed a dead pipelink from that page. I changed basin countries to say Northern Ireland which is inkeeping with NI related pages using the same template. And is the same content as the Carlingford Lough infobox. So why did Domer decide to revert only after a month and after I have been blocked? Ohh that's right he's on probation. The question is why ate you here telling me off rather than reverting his edit?Hackneyhound (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HackneyHound, I'm sure you would love it if me and Domer were the same person but unfortunately we are not. Some of us like to play by the rules and anyways I doubt Domer would know a 953 from a 959. As for the deadlink you removed from Lough Neagh (which also removed reference to Ireland) that took me all of a couple of minute to find and fix. Some of us are here to improve this project, other are here to push their POV by whatever means they can. Bjmullan (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan, please do not cloud my page. My edits at Lough Neagh were explainee on the talkpage. I removed content relating to dead reference. Not Pov. My fault as I did not understand the makeup of the template. I could not understand how Lough Neagh was 9% in the ROI. I did not realise that basin countries was the contribution to the Lough. However the reference refers to NI not UK so duly replaced UK with NI in the Basin Countries field. And this edit is in line with all other NI Lough related pages including carlingford Lough page, and the edit to Basin Countries, you did not revert. Also as a new user I was not aware that dead links had to be tagged. A learning note.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained myself a number of times over my edits yet Domer and Bjmullan have not yet they continue to cloud my unblock request with misleading comments which falls under WP:CIV. Admins please look into the accounts if Bjmullan and Domer48 as it is no coincidence that they turn up at my page in quick succession. Domer48 and Bjmullan, please do not comment on my page again.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2012 (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).

Hackneyhound (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 sock and I wish to be unlocked. The CU was not 100% and behavioural evidence is no different to the behavior of collaboral socks Bjmullan and Domer48, my accusers. I am not a sock, my only mistake is not spreading my edits but as a new user I have to start somewhere.Hackneyhound (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not going to get yourself unblocked by accusing others of being socks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (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.

Zebedee, please advise as to how I can be unblocked if no SPI case was raised against me and I have been called a sock by users who have no evidence. I have only mentioned that the behaviour of Bjmullan and Domer48 is no different to my own behaviour yet they have not been blocked. And I have Bjmullan and Domer48 not to post on my page yet they continue to aggravate me. Please advise?Hackneyhound (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

• I can't really help with advice on how to be unblocked, sorry - that will have to be handled by those who have investigated the allegations made against you. I only declined your recent request because you were using it to make accusations against other editors, and that will never get a blocked editor unblocked. Also, if you don't want other editors to comment here, then you should not use this page to make accusations against them - you can't accuse them, and then when they reply complain that they are harassing you. In fact, you are only allowed the use of this page while blocked in order to seek unblock, and using this page to post accusations against other editors is an abuse of that privilege - so if you make one more accusation against another editor on this page, I will revoke your ability to edit here altogether. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

I have found this process incredibly frustrating. I don't understand why you closed the unblock request if you wish for another admin to review...that and given that there was no SPI case, what evidence can another admin review? I have been blocked based on a hunch and a coincidence that in the real world would be laughed at in court. I simply was highlighting that I have been linked to Gravyring with as much a relation as my opposition Bjmullan and Domer48 yet no block has come their way. I am not sure how I can prove otherwise that I am not a sock, other than there was a period where Gravyring did not edit for 12 days, that I had in the past warned Gravy as regards to civility here [5]. I had also been mentioned in relation to user:One_Night_in_Hackney [6]. This feels more like a witch hunt. I am neither Gravyring nor One_Night_in_Hackney. Just goes to show what little it takes to get blocked with allegations of docking only a means to diminish an argument rather than protect the project.Hackneyhound (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request to he unblocked as per evidence in my last post. I am not a sock and I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the behavioral evidence, and the checkuser finding that a relation is possible. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:30, 17 April 2012 (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.

Neutral heading

As an editing account which you have been linked to has made frivolous claims about editors in a misleading unblock request I'm asking you to stop now. You have been warned above not to use this talk page for attacks on other editors or face loosing the privilage to edit this talk page. Your request is also misleading, as it ignores the comments of a number of admins in the above discussion.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not be held responsible for any edits made by Gravyring any more than you can be held accountable for edits made by Bjmullan. I think it is really uncivil that you have started a smear campaign against me not just on my page but on many admins pages. You have been canvassing admins regarding my case which is a form of meat puppetry. Then after I was blocked you then reverted a stable edit I had made at Lough Neagh page, which was stable for a month and you have also mentioned my name in an SPI case where you have failed to notify me and during a period when I am unable to comment. All of this yet you fail to mention your chequered past or the fact you are on probation from editing the troubles related articles. In my comments above I have simply said that the edits I have made in agreement with Gravyring are no different to the supporting edits you and Bjmullan have made. You seem to have a get out if jail free card. Please stay off my page as I'm sure a competent admin will clue into your pathetic efforts and block you indefinitely, nit for sock puppetry but for constant harrassment and gaming. Now go away!!!

• Folks, please stop this fight. While Hackneyhound has been warned not to use this page to attack other editors, those other editors should also not use it this page to provoke Hackneyhound. Hackneyhound has asked several people to stop posting here on this Talk page, and that should be respected - anyone continuing to harass Hackneyhound here should expect some actions against them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• PS: I have changed the heading of this section - heading sections should not be provocative or accusing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]