en User talk:PPdd

Sockpuppetry - Indefinitely blocked

With this edit you have openly confirmed your IP address - the same IP address you used to edit Talk:Allied Artists International and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart to appear as a different user supporting your positions, in some cases replying to your own comments. Doing so is highly manipulative and serious disruption. As a result, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bypassing due process at Wikipedia, and not having off talk page discussions of accusations of Sockpuppetry? You just did the same above by ignoring the normal process of 3RR accusations and an ability to respond on the proper public pages. Why do you keep blocking me without any normal procedures of due process, or even asking me for an explanation. What is the sockpuppetry? I have notified others that since I have been editing crime articles, I use an anonymous IP, especially as I have been physically threatened, as discussed elsewhere (ask User:Ocaasi). But there is no policy or guideline that requires this. And I even noticed the mentoring in the section above, where I might have the same IP as another working on the same article. I did not even have to make such notifications, since I am not required to remember to log on in order to edit. Admin Arthur Rubin even told me in my talk page archives that I can edit from a remote IP. When I do edits from different internet cafes, the IP address is different. How is that in any way sockpuppetry? Please cite the specific language which you base your block on. PPdd (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither edit warring or sockpuppetry require an un-involved admin (such as me) to take a case to a forum for resolution. Administrators may directly block editors without going to a noticeboard. However all blocks are subject to review and appeal. The forums (WP:AN3 and WP:SPI allow non-admins to focus attention on such situations to be resolved by administrators and/or checkuser. In this case no checkuser is necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Don't you understand that pretending to be more than one person is forbidden here? You are supposed to use only ONE account (an IP is ONE account, and a registered username is another account). Since IPs can change, you're supposed to always log in. Anyone who has this problem should only edit while logged in.

There are certain exceptions, but there is absolutely no exception that allows pretending to be more than one person, especially if it involves edit warring, vote stacking, or block evasion. You have really goofed up here. (Note that an indefinite block isn't always an "eternal" block, but don't expect to be allowed back anytime soon.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. You may edit while logged out but you may not pretend to be a different person supporting your arguments as you did more than once. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, your writing "pretending to be more than one person... you're supposed to always log in" is a violation of AGF. That is COMPLETELY unlike you.

Do you recall this conversation we already had?

"PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)"

I notified many editors that I received threats for editing on organized crime ring articles, when I started editing at Pearlasia Gamboa. I notified many editors I would be using anonymous IPs, such as User:Ocaasi, when I started editing at Pearlasia Gamboa and associated articles. I got the idea from Arthur Rubin correcting you. I also recommended to many editors that they also use anonymous IPs. Ask Ocassi.

Since I got blocked by Toddst1 without any of the normal due process and public pages discussion, and wihout even noticing me, the person blocked, I cannot notify these editors about this to comment.

Allied Artists Records was called the biggest fraud in music industry history in the LA Times. Please read the talk page of Allied Artists International. Please look at the third item in the reference list in this deleted version, and you, too, would want to edit from anonymous IPs. Please read the reference list here[1], then reinstate the reliable sources that the socks for Warriorboy85 removed and replaced with nonsense. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It so happens that I still have your talk page on my watchlist. I have to say I am surprised at this and I think that Toddst1 may have been precipitate. In particular I don't see what he seems to see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart and I think the mixture of logged-in and logged-out comments at Talk:Allied Artists International, while not ideal, did not seem to me to be in any way deceptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems clear to me that the IP was PPdd, editing logged-out in an unwise but obvious way. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd, you may appeal this block by using the {{unblock}} template. However, I think your actions - especially replying to your own talk-page comments [2]- do not indicate that this block was made in error.

It would be different if you were signing the articles as your logged-in id. However, as is evidenced here, you payed very close attention to your signatures, ensuring they were exactly as you wanted them to appear - as an IP, different from PPdd (talk · contribs)

In fact, I have come to believe you have been deceiving the community for quite some time. This pattern is not new, and it is quite deliberate: [3] [4]. Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what is so deceptive about this? The IP made trivial changes to his posting of 00:18 and signed it again so that it had a new timestamp of 00:22. That's not deceptive, that's good practice. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears that PPDD is ~~you are~~ evading his/her ~~your~~ block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. In what way does this show evidence of evading of a block? Please either specify or apologize. PPdd (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was that addressed to me? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sorry for the pronoun ambiguity. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I do not defend block evasion, of course. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there a sockpuppetry block without notice to the community in the normal manner, and in the way specified in the Wikipedia policies and procedures, with due process of specified accusations via diffs, and an ability for defense before the block, and a defense in a public place, not on my user page, utterly without due process? Toddst1 did the same thing by bypassing the 3RR process above, blocking me within three minutes of a 3RR warning, then ignored wording in WP:EW, and did not respond in any way to the fact that I was not edit warring because I was reverting vandalism and enforcing policies in a BLP. PPdd (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC) From User_talk:PPdd/Archive_2[5] -[reply]

This is dispositive as to my intentions, since Arthur Rubin is a respected Admin -

"PPdd, make sure you log in all the time. Editing from IPs is not allowed when you have an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That last statement is absolutely false. 'Only certain known sock-puppeteers are required not to edit from IPs. — User:Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the third item in the reference list in this[6] deleted version, and you, too, would want to edit from anonymous IPs.

My own block is unimportant to Wikipedia. So would someone please improve Wikipedia by reading the entire reference list here[7], then reinstate the reliable sources and information that the socks for User:Warriorboy85 removed and replaced with nonsense[8]. PPdd (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using IP because I do so when editing organized crime articles, and especially because of the third item in the reference list in this version [9]. Socks for the Kimball Dean Richards, aka User:Warriorboy85, the guy in that reference, deleted all of the reliable sources in my version, and replaced them all with very bad sources, which do not even say what they supposedly support[10]. Please see the recent sections in Talk:Allied Artists International. PPdd (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've been blocked for violating policy. You can use this page to contest this block but you are not free to rant about some conspiracy. I am not going to unblock you. You may contest this block by applying the {{unblock}} template but if you continue to rant like below, I'll revoke your talk page privilege. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Talk page privileges revoked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Aram James for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aram James is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aram James until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -Location (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Robert N. Rooks

The article Robert N. Rooks has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert N. Rooks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert N. Rooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Rooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a finished project listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia is not a finished project. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia is not a finished project redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not finished listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia is not finished. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia is not finished redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ARIEL R. CALEON

A tag has been placed on ARIEL R. CALEON, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason: