User talk:Oh boy chicken again

I'm more of a lurker. If I feel like i can contribute I probably will but this place is very confusing. I created an account because of the controversy on the Rupert sheldrake article. I wanted to lend a voice to the page and want to be neutral. I'm not confident I will be much help but the page seems like it needs an outside POV.

I'm new don't bite me I'm already scared to do much of anything. Oh boy chicken again (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Welcome

Hello, Oh boy chicken again, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing experience

Regarding your statement here [1].

It would indeed be unfortunate if your first editing experience at Wikipedia happened to be in a very hot article in which you ended up getting burned turned you away from Wikipedia.

If the sock investigation turns out to conclude that you are an innocent party who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I do invite you to attempt to edit at articles that are not so contentious. Most of Wikipedia does not have the intensely opposed sides as do some of the articles that attract hard core FRINGE theory supporters. (although you may also want to steer away from articles about Israel/Palestine, The Troubles, Homeopathy, Scientology as other majorly hot and contentious areas of editing)

It is also important to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and that writing an open source encyclopedia requires conventions and approaches that are VERY different from those of traditional journalism. It may take adjustments to be able to take off a professional journalism hat and put on a Wikipedia editor hat. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Tumbleman (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2013 (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).

Oh boy chicken again (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am unsure what I did wrong here. But I am not a sock puppet. I also do random IP based edits from home and work. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Editor had two unblock requests open. I have given my reasons for declining the unblock request below, and closing this second outstanding unblock request. Singularity42 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2013 (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).

Oh boy chicken again (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I requested an unblock last week. I was then given another notice that I was blocked and nothing was reviewed. I am requesting that I have my account unblocked because I am not Tumbleman, nor was I sock puppeting for Tumbleman. I am in control of my account. I do not know what I have done wrong, and I would like to have my account reinstated. Oh boy chicken again (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not being completely forthcoming here.

First, the Checkuser information at the sockpuppet investigation clearly showed that this account was technically indistinguishable with other suspected sockpuppets. So even if this account was not a sockpuppet of the suspected master account, it was clearly involved in editing from multiple accounts.

Second, there was behavioural evidence connecting all the technically indistinguishable accounts (including this one) with the master account.

Third, the new Checkuser data (collected since the block first came into effect) now indicates that it is possible this account and the suspected master are technically connected.

All together, this account is most likely a sockpuppet. If I'm wrong, it is clearly involved in some type of editing from multiple accounts which is not being addressed in these unblock requests. Singularity42 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2013 (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.

Checkuser note: For the reviewing admin, checkuser now indicates that the accounts are quite

possibly related, not

Unlikely as was mentioned before. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]