User talk:CodSaveTheQueen

Troubles restrictions

The article Derry, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.

Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but i dont think ive done anything wrong yet.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. HighKing (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admins, I have been blocked for apparent sock puppetry in relation to user:Factocop. I am not said user and evidence to suggest this is nit picketty and coincidental. I edited on 2 pages that Factocop had previously edited on. I made one single edit to 'Derry' and applied an agreed infobox to 'Giant's Causeway' from an albeit stale converstaion. These 2 edits have let to my blocking. These edits were made amongst several other constructive edits where I applied infoboxes to coastal towns in Northern Ireland that previous did not have an infobox assigned. MY 2 edits that have led to my blocking were blind edits and I did not realise fully the circumstances surrounding them. Other evidence was that I sometimes use capitals and sometime I dont. Which apparently is a famous trait of Factocop or just the trait of someone who doesnt care too much for Grammar. Having looked at previous Factocop cases, other evidence is that said user does not use edit descriptions. This is something I do, so as to make it clear to other editors what I am doing. I don't think my edits were too bad to be honest. Please review this unblock request as genuine as I sincerely wished to continue to edit. thanks,CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser evidence -- I verified -- is convincing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:10, 11 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Jpgordon, please can you tell me what the checkuser does exactly and the results please. I did not see any mention of checkuser in the sock investigation? also there was mention of stale date in relation of Factocop...is this the same data you used to verify? thanks,CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser information cannot be made public, and blocks based on it can't be undone through usual ways, so feel free to appeal to other checkusers or the BASC. Max Semenik (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2012 (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.

For the record, this edit [[1]] was made to the Giants Causeway page, reverting Murry1975's revert of my own edit. This IP is not me, before any link is made and seems to be based out of County Tyrone. thanks,CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a fresh investigation, not based on any prior; the results are that you are almost certainly Factocop. We don't present raw checkuser data (it's privileged). --15:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm just confused. One user said that Factocop data was stale so how can you compare Factocop with me?...also you said that the check was almost certainly correct, so does that mean that the check is not 100% accurate? Is it possible someone close to me has the same IP or operating along the same bandwidth?

Decline reason:

The SPI said the technical data was stale, but those doing the investigation have enough familiarity with the alleged sockmaster to make that call based on other evidence, of which they had a lot. I won't go into it because disclosure of how we investigate sockpuppetry allegations would possibly seriously compromise our ability to combat it. As for your second question, we are aware of that issue. My statement above notwithstanding, I can tell you that we can very easily distinguish those things. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would say that had I not denounced the actions of this IP here [2], I am certain that the IP would also be blocked for being a sock of Factocop, as they have made the same edit as me, nothing to do with experience. I think I have edited 10 pages of which Factocop has only edited 2. So how does one go about making the same argument without being accused of being Factocop? the answer it seems is they cant! Experience you say? Like I have pointed out, I have a habit of using edit summaries which I believe Factocop did not do, I also did not break any 1RR or edit war which is also a trait of Factocop, and the checkuser here [3] came back with STALE result. Here User:Murry1975 is concerned that a new user may get caught up in the Factocop legacy [4] this seems to be the case here. If you look at my contributions so far, they have helped wiki, adding infoboxes, not breaking any RR and using the discussion pages. Just because SoMeTiMeS i UsE cApItAlS and sometimes I dont is just the typing style of someone in a rush. Thats all. IF you telling me that Factocop and his socks are the only users to exhibit these traits then you are way off. its just impossible. For these reasons I wish to be unblocked. CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been advised to contact WP:BASC as this account cannot be unblocked via this process. As such, I will be locking this page from further abuse of the unblock process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 12 June 2012 (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.