This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernice McCullers. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC) |
Alright, I have thought a lot about this block since placing it, and I would like to clarify a few things. I am aware that you have already admitted that the Johnny Smith 1776 account was operated by someone whom you know and canvassed to a discussion. I am also aware that you have stated that you were unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sock puppetry policies at the time. Based on these circumstances, I would be willing to unblock you if you agree to a few conditions.
As you know now, convincing someone else to create a Wikipedia account and support your side in a discussion looks a lot like sock puppetry and is often treated like sock puppetry. It's a serious breach of community trust because it makes it look like there's more support for one side in a discussion than there actually is (anyone can recruit an arbitrary number of people and make it look like there is a lot of support for one side). In order to be unblocked, you should agree not to operate multiple accounts or recruit friends in such an illegitimate manner. As a means to this end, you should also agree to leave the Johnny Smith 1776 (talk · contribs) account blocked even if you are unblocked. If the person who operated this account wishes to return to active editing, they must provide us with a clear plan for how they wish to contribute independently of how you are contributing.
Secondly, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and to accomplish that, we try to adopt a collegial tone while contributing to discussions. I realize that it can be frustrating to see an article that you worked on get nominated for deletion, but it's important to make arguments about the content, not the contributors. It's difficult to work together when editors make comments directed at the other editor, instead of the article. The goal is consensus, not winning votes. I have reviewed your evidence with respect to Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert, and I did some looking around myself. Unfortunately, it's unconvincing to me. Indeed, there are some volunteers who spend a good deal of time contributing to various areas of Wikipedia, so it's likely that two editors who are active at WP:AFD might frequently appear in the same discussion, and if they have similar views toward deletion, they might find that they agree often. Note that there are cases in which the two disagree: for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia. In order to be unblocked, it's my view that you should agree to withdraw your accusations of sock puppetry against these two and refrain from making them again. This is so that the discussion can continue on more collegial terms.
Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope that this SPI and the block / unblock have been an object lesson in how Wikipedia works and that you can continue to work on a broad range of articles to benefit the encyclopedia. Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if I can help. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)