User talk:Dani zee

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not Eric Mass or a Sock or Meat Puppet of his, I feel that this block was used to keep me from helping debate the validity of the article, this move feels like the party involved in the deletion is trying to push me out of the way while the article is deleted.

Decline reason:

If you are not Ericmaas (which would make this a sockpuppet account) AND you were not personally invited here by Ericmaas for the sole purpose of working on the HExistentialism article and helping to add votes to the WP:AFD discussion of it (which is also not allowed), then how do you explain the fact that your first edits were to this brand new article? There seems compelling behavioral evidence that either you are the same person as Ericmaas or you are here solely at his behest for the purpose of commenting on the AFD discussion in question. Per this arbcom decision, both situations are treated the same and are equally blockable. I can find no other explanation for your editing history. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:38, 17 July 2009 (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.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Jayron32 already did this. Happy editing.

Request handled by: PeterSymonds (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I am contacting the blocking admin presently. Something in your story is compelling and needs further investigation. Please be patient while we work this out. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you I will be patient.

BTW - Are you asking me why Eric Mass is using "We" and "Our"? Or Are you just pointing out his response to referecnce evidence in this block. I would also like to know why he was blocked only for 24 hours and I was blocked indefinitely.

Thanks Again.

A bunch of text with Eric Mass's response disappeared... anyway here is what was important "I would like to note that I received an email from the above user stating: "Really not sure why I have been blocked for 24 hours." "Might I ask why you are using "we" and stating that it is "your" article? " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dani zee (talk • contribs)

Yeah, sorry. I posted the wrong email here. I had received one from both yourself and Ericmaas (talk · contribs), and accidentally posted the one from the Maas account here. Tiptoety ^talk 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical CU evidence suggests they aren't socks, however behavioral evidence points strongly to 'meatpuppetry'. I'm willing to assume good faith here, and suggest the similar behaviors are because both individuals have the same conflict of interest rather than intentional meatpuppetry for the purpose of disrupting the project.. --Versa geek 04:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article hExistentialism, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. MuZemike 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]