User talk:Kiwisleep

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Peter9753 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter9753. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - TheresNoTime ^😺 13:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwisleep: This block was made on checkuser evidence - checkuser allows certain administrators to view the technical logs which are created when, among other things, you log in and edit pages. It includes things such as IP addresses and other identifying data. On the 15th July 2021, both you and the account Peter9753 made actions which were technically indistinguishable to one another. This, paired with the behavioural evidence has resulted in your block. Another checkuser or administrator will be along shortly to review this block. To the reviewing CU, please refer to 09:55, 15 July 2021. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is in response to the unblock request removed here ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:51, 8 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block is justified mainly by the claim that Peter9753 voted in support and made arguments that were "indistinguishable" (if I recall correctly, I can't find that page now) from my own and the proximity of the dates of submission. The first is actually inaccurate, the second has a different explanation. Peter9753 was not the only one to support, so did Roman Spinner and Necrothesp. And someone, I don't know who that is, actually made the change. In fact, Peter9753 was making a different argument than mine, he was proposing a dual identifier. If anyone was making the same argument as me it was Necrothesp. I suggested Bailey is mainly now known as a historian. I got reported by a contributor who seems to only contribute to pages with athletic content (a huge number of them in fact!), i.e. someone with an exclusive interest in sports (Joseph2302; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joseph2302) and who, originally at least, had a rather unsupported case, that a major historian be only identified by an athletic activity he had decades ago. When his preference did not prevail, only then did he report me, simply because someone backed my position--with a different argument! The only points that are the same are points that any historian would make, namely that the Ford lectures at Oxford University are the most distinguished in the English historical profession and , according to Oxford's website, 'The Lectures invariably result in important books, many of them classic and pioneering works of British history." (https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/james-ford-lectures-british-history#/). It really does not get higher than this! Any professional historian will affirm this. When someone from an outside field is editing an entry they really should take a minute to understand what an accomplishment means and how that person is perceived in that field. You will see other entries that are dismissive of his historical accomplishments, something very damaging to the person. Contrary to the claims that the arguments are the same, Peter wanted a dual identifier--something that other users have also said was not appropriate. Though I cannot prove it (and he refuses to confirm this), I did talk about this page with a colleague in my organization shortly after I made the request, and we disagreed rather vehemently. Though he obviously also agreed that the word historian should be in the title (he knows Bailey's work), as he is a historian himself--he said there should be a dual identifier. I argued this is not the norm in such cases. He's been a rugby player for 10 years and an academic for 40.... He disagreed and shortly thereafter the comment appeared. So it seems I am being blocked because of a contribution of someone with whom I don't actually fully agree. I would really appreciate my account being unblocked, because I do want to continue contributing on pages and build a profile and to be able to offer more and this contribution helps in that. Thank you. Kiwisleep (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block was made based on technical evidence. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:43, 8 August 2021 (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.

What is the technical evidence? I address this in my explanation.