User talk:Jurtal

Talk page.

Question re: multiple accounts[edit]

Could you clarify for me whether you're also operating the account LysanderMises (talk · contribs)? Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 06:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. This is my only account. Jurtal (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given some of the evidence pointing to inappropriate use of multiple accounts, I've asked for outside input at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jurtal. You're welcome to comment there if you wish. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Shadowthedog (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:41, 4 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Inapropriate block for incorrect assumption of sockpuppetry. Jurtal (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an assumption: technically confirmed as either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 5 July 2013 (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.

Shadowthedog and I are two different people. We work at the same office and live in separate homes. We use our accounts to make edits both from work and home. If you actually look at the logs, you should see that edits we make during the workday have the same IP address and edits made at night are done from different IPs. Wikipedia apparently needs a better user verification system if two different people at the same office can't use their own accounts to make edits to the same page without getting blocked.

If you actually look at our history, I have contradicted at least one of ShadowtheDog's edits. For example, on July 2, he removed the word American from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Institute, and I then re-added it. If you look at the extent of his edits he really has no idea how to properly make citations, or how to contribute to Talk pages. I do. If you look at Shadowthedogs' history, he has made one edit to one page in the past 2 months: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shadowthedog If I wanted to use more than one account to build phony consensus why on earth would I essentially stop using the first account and make an entirely whole new account? No, I would have kept using the original account the whole time.

This block is not necessary to prevent disruption because if you look at my actual activity it has not been disruptive. My edits have been a fair and evenhanded attempt to neutralize vandalism to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Institute. Left alone, the hostile individual Carlstak vandalizes that page and until I came along, no one was bothering to clean it up or refute his lies.

I see that IndependentRob was also blocked. I don't really care if he stays blocked or not, but for the record, he is a different person than me or Shadowthedog. He works in the same office as us, hence the common IP. If you look at his few contributions he also has no idea how to properly make edits, which should hopefully help show that we are different people. Jurtal (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, you referred me to the Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts page. Interesting reading, but the entire list applies to a single person using multiple accounts. None of those bullet points actually apply to me and Shadowthedog because as I said we are actually different people using different accounts. Believe it or not, people who know each other in the real world actually talk to each other and can both have the desire to make edits the same page. That doesn't mean that one person is the "puppet" of the other person. Again, is there someone we can call or email scans of our drivers licenses to or something to prove that we are in fact different people?

BWilkins, you posted a response on Shadowthedog's page. You could at least have the common courtesy to post a response to my page too.

Tell me, what exactly am I supposed to do at this point if I want to continue to be an editor? Create a new account? Get my IP address changed? You tell me.

If I can't convince you that we are different people, at the very least, block Shadowthedog and unblock me since shadowthedog says he's not going to bother doing any more editing anyway, and I do want to do more editing. Jurtal (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of policy is at WP:COWORKER. It reads, in part:

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

I hope that's helpful in explaining why your situation has been handled as it has. MastCell ^Talk 03:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shadowthedog/Archive that i can contact ArbCom with proof of identity. How exactly do I do that? Jurtal (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and the others could email scans of your employee IDs to arbcom-appeals-en

lists.wikimedia.org. Note that it is at their discretion, so they may require you to refrain from editing about your employer if unblocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Logo of The Independent Institute.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Logo of The Independent Institute.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]