User talk:Redgator5

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Talk Page[edit]

I will not tolerate malicious or vulgar comments. These comments will be read but deleted if they bear no relevance to Wikipedia or my user account. I will also not accept SPAM comments. Redgator5 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Matilda ^talk 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic stats[edit]

Then I would suggest we take the article back to the stats of 17 September per WP:NOTNEWS - we are not going to update these stats daily or weekly and I am concerned at the POV pushing that updating the stats indicates - in fact I think the volatility of the stats is an interesting point and I am really genuinely curious about why Mauritania - what does it mean. I don't think the information is too long, even in proportion to the article. We have an assertion about Japan but in fact we are talking Mexico, India and Spain after Mauritania. As a matter of interest, given WP:BIAS, those stats (if they could be explained especially), would be an argument for keeping the article.--Matilda ^talk 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do know about the tool bar and do have some understanding of how Alexa works. The trouble is Alexa was being used as a criterion for notability - eg in this message . The article references are inadequate. The closure of this AfD as "no consensus" means deletion can be raised again - and I will do so if no sources materialise - for example the to-date-phantom Norwegian article. The current references do not establish notability according to our guidelines (WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB ) - and the point you made about it meeting WP:WEB criterion 3 is not a sustainable argument - you have not interpreted that citerion correctly in my view. If a country that has just been through a coup and is not noted for its fishing industry is variously the biggest user or the second biggest user according to a reasonably valid tool - a tool moreover that was cited for notability by Spindoctor69 - then .. what can one conclude? --Matilda ^talk 01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to wait for one month or so for good sources to materialise. I will follow the development of the article with interest.
There was a suggestion that the Norwegian article would be published within the week. It would be good if it were available (and online) - I will ~~bablefish it~~ http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Norwegian&to=English (bablefish doesn't do Norwegian :-( ) to ensure the gist of the article matches the claims attributed to it, or the claims the article is cited to support.
I certainly appreciate that it may be harder for some web sites to establish notability than others even though they are actually more significant. It amazes me there are no sources other than trivial mentions or those that do not meet our WP:RS guideline. Aren't there fishing industry magazines that woould be mention it? Obviously the industry is very large, if the site is important - and I can't see why it isn't: it looks important/useful when I view it - why is it not discussed anywhere? I am sure I would have no difficulty in verifying say the importance of the Sydney Morning Herald, if its notability was challenged, with many many external references. I appreciated the web is different but this site has been around for 12 to 13 years.
I genuinely don't understand. I am not trying to be hard to get on with deliberately. --Matilda ^talk 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Comments such as this will get you an instant blocking on the next occasion - comment on the material not on the editor. Okay? --VS ^talk 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why - Why penalize me and not the other user who makes constant rude and sarcastic comments?Redgator5 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for using multiple sock-puppet accounts at AfD and elsewhere as proven here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 12:48, 26 September 2008 (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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing a block due to shared IP: Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same person not the same internet conncetion. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of Matilda, which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.Redgator5 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit patterns match; see WP:GAB#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks. — Sandstein 22:50, 26 September 2008 (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.

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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As per comments by user below. I had not realised that asking friends to edit or friends asking me to edit was sockpuppetry, I read the guidelines and it states that it is. I therefore admit to that claim and would like to be unblocked. I will refrain myself from making major edits to the article since COI is difficult to disprove (although i still thouroughly deny the accusations). I see my block more as an attempt to influence the AfD disscussion by user:virtual steve VS. I will see to it that if I am unblocked, I will make only minor edits to this article and shall continue my activities on the other articles which I have edited and created. I don't see how edit histories match since me and the other user only share 2 articles, I have edited many more. I enjoy improving wikipedia and would like to continue. Redgator5 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Agree with the initial block by VirtualSteve and the above review by Sandstein. This latest unblock request also leaves something to be desired as far as lack of forthrightness about the whole thing. — Cirt (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2008 (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.

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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well I really don't have much to be forthright about, like I said, I admit to the sockpuppetry since what I did was against the guidelines. I honstly have no COIs with this company, but I have my oppinions on it and think it should be kept. Even though I am a new user on Wikipedia, I am completely against the deletionist mindset of the parties involved, and that is why I feel so strongly about the article. I think that almost anything can have an article on Wikipedia so long as it is referanced correctly etc. I believe in improving an article and not simply deleting it. I don't see why I can't be unblocked for at least a short amount of time, and obviously if I do anything controversial or againt the guidelines I can just be re-blocked. At least this ban shouldn't be indefinate. I still don't understand how someone could be blocked indefinately for not knowing or understanding the guidelines. All people make mistakes, I was careless and obviously won't make the same mistakes again. Again, I fully admit that I broke the guidelines and would like to edit once again.Redgator5 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Further comment: I was reading the sockpuppet report and it says that the site is registered here in Argentina? The office is in Japan.Redgator5 (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

since you admit to the sockpuppetry and you had plenty of warnings I'd say we have nothing further to discuss. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 4 October 2008 (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.

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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After a considerable "Wikibreak", I have decided to appeal my block once more. I have returned with a different mindset and am fully willing to comply with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I understand that what happened with the FIS article may be interpreted as sockpuppetry since both I and user:spindoctor69 were fighting for the same cause. I would like to once again clarify that we are not the same person despite our intentions being the same, if this counts as sockpuppetry, I admit to that and promise that this will not re-occer. I feel that I have alot to contribute to the Wikipedia project in general and wish to do so in a more productive manner than perviously seen. I would also like to add that I was originaly blocked only for a period of one year, however I belive that user:VirtualSteve extended the block to "indefinate". In response to my account being "single purpose", I indeed did start only contributing to one article, however as I progressed, I began to contribute to other articles and projects which I wish to continue contributing to. I wish only to be given a second chance, afterall if I slip-up once more (which I can assure you that I will not), I can always be blocked again.

Decline reason:

You have tried to promise to follow Wikipedia rules without admitting that you broke them in the first place. This indicates that the previous declining administrators' counsel remains unheeded, yielding no confidence in your sincerity. — Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2008 (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.

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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Just to confirm, I do admit that I have broken the rules and promise to comply with the rules in the future. I feel that I have much to give to wikipedia and still wish to continue contributing to the project. When I was blocked, I was a new user after only having the account for a couple of weeks and did not understand/know all of the rules and guidelines. During this time in which I have been blocked, I have read through the rules and guidelines and feel that my knowledge of them is sufficiant enough to continue editing and contributing to the Wikipedia project.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry will never be an acceptable practice on Wikipedia; whilst precedent might suggest it can be (in reference to some unblocks of sockpuppeteers), under your circumstances I fail to see an aspirational or reliable editor. Addendum – no matter the intermittence between each unblock request, one more, and you run the risk of this page being permanently protected. Caulde 23:01, 23 December 2008 (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.

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).

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am willing to take the risk of the page being protected and ask for a compremise in good faith. Firstly, I ask that the next person who reads this request to also carefuly consider what I have written in the above two requests. Considering the time that has passed from the initial block, I have shown some Aspirational and reliable values as an editor. However, I have still not had a proper chance to prove myslef as an editor, so I ask that I be unblocked for a short period (say, a week) in which I be placed under moderation in order to prove that I can be a valuable asset to the project. Good faith is all I ask for. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You have admitted to breaking the rules and apparently to conflict of interest, you have not indicated what you intend to bring to the project other than bias in a particular article, and the change(s) you have proposed do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Sorry, but the value of your editing seems to be very low and the issues with your few edits to date are rather more significant. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 24 December 2008 (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.

Fish Info and Services[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you had input in a previus deletion discussion. The article looks like it may be deleted by the same group of people who started the first discussion, without imput from you or others who contributed previously. I thought you may liketo know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to see this account unblocked.[edit]

Redgator, a review of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 convinced me that your identity as Spindoctor69 is practically proven, in spite of some possible faults in the process. If this is correct, I would highly recommend that you acknowledge it, that you affirm that you will not create additional accounts except in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and, further, that you acknowledge any conflict of interest (COI) that you may have. As Spindoctor69, you tendentiously defended the Fish Information and Services article, which you had created. At this point, I predict that the article will ultimately be kept, and it would have been kept from the first AfD (No Consensus = Keep) if not for the sock puppet confusion. I.e., your aggressive defense could result in deletion -- even though it should be irrelevant -- or, at least, it prolonged the process.

As an editor with a COI, you would generally be expected to refrain from any controversial edits to articles where that COI applies, but you would still be able to suggest changes on the Talk pages, and within the bounds of civility and general consensus, argue for them there.

I believe that your continued participation in the project could benefit the encyclopedia, if it stays within community norms. If you agree to the conditions above, please show your agreement here, and I'm prepared to argue for your unblock based on an acknowledgment of your errors and your pledge not to repeat them.

If you are not Spindoctor69, which remains a remote possibility under some very unusual situations -- which you have not disclosed, should they exist -- that simple path won't be open to you, but we can cross that bridge if it is necessary. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! i would like to see this block contested. There are no COIs and I have contributed to many articles! I really don't understand why I have been blocked. (Redgator5 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You need to use the template as instructed above in the block notice --Matilda ^talk 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FIS.com[edit]

Also, I found this article with user reviews. It shoul help establish notability on the article: http://www.xomreviews.com/fis.com (Redgator5 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think it meets our guideline on sources --Matilda ^talk 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]