User talk:Smellytap

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smellytap. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

multiple accounts are permitted. I assume that the reason was because of multiple comments on the same delete page. The first one was done from the wrong account, and the second was done as a comment, not another vote. I am happy to amend the comments to reflect that they are from the same account.Smellytap (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:13, 9 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account was meant to be deleted by me for various reasons. If you look at the accounts they were created concurrently with this account not being used (except for a few accidental uses) at around Feb 25. MorkMan is my wife, and should not be included in this discussion. Since the complexity of the experiment of multiple accounts has clearly failed, I am happy to delete all the other suspected accounts and start a new account, and use only that. I have attempted to edit Wikipedia to the best of my ability and to help fill gaps in the encyclopaedia in the areas of my knowledge. I believe in the goals of Wikipedia and will continue to edit in the same fashion as I did prior to opening the multiple accounts. (Smellytap (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

See the discussion below. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2018 (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.

Accounts cannot be deleted for both technical (no option exists in the software) and legal (violates our copyright licencing) reasons. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I shall assume that what you say about MorkMan74 is true. Technically even then she could fall under the category of meatpuppet, but I shan't pursue that now, and I shall just leave that account out. That still leaves a number of points which you haven't explained, or which appear not to fit into your explanation very easily. Perhaps you can clarify them.
You refer to "the experiment of multiple accounts", but you give no explanation as to why you suddenly started creating new accounts, or what the "experiment" was intended to achieve. I have searched in vain for any sign of difference in use, such as using one account for editing in one topic area and another in another topic area. Indeed, there are numerous cases of your using more than one account on the same page, so there can't be an explanation of that kind. What was your purpose in using several accounts?
It is true that the other accounts came into use in a period when this account was not being used, but I am not sure why that is relevant, since you were using several accounts concurrently, and the fact that you incidentally also had another account which you were not using doesn't alter that.
There have been some occasions when you have shifted from one account to another in a short time. The most striking example occurred on 7 March, when you made an edit as AndyTheLevite, then one as UnicornLoz, then one as Smellytap, then another one as UnicornLoz, three as AndyTheLevite, one as Smellytap, three as UnicornLoz, and two as AndyTheLevite. In some cases there was a substantial time gap between uses of different accounts, but in other cases there wasn't, as for example when you edited as UnicornLoz at 20:25 and then as AndyTheLevite at 20:28. Why did you do that switching back and forth among different accounts?
In connection with your posting comments to the same deletion discussion from two different accounts you say "The first one was done from the wrong account". In what sense was it "wrong"? What account would have been the right one, and on what basis would you make that distinction?
It would of course have helped to avoid suspicion if you had stated that you were using multiple accounts. Why didn't you?
I am posting this message to give you an opportunity to explain yourself. I don't have to do so, and the alternative would have been simply to have declined the unblock request, which I could have done with a tiny fraction of the amount of time and effort I have put into giving you a chance. I will tell you that various aspects of what you have done look exactly like standard things that people using multiple accounts dishonestly frequently do, as any administrator with experience of dealing with sockpuppet cases is likely to recognise, so you really do have to explain yourself if you are to be unblocked: it will not happen by default. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the time you are putting in.

I wanted to stop using this account for personal reasons, which I do not want to go in to in detail, but that seems to be a side issue.
I have never denied using multiple account, but neither have I attempted to reveal it, and I concede that that would look suspicious from someone sitting on the other side of a computer not knowing me. As a relative newbie to Wiki where would I have mentioned it?
The multiple accounts was an attempt by me to have each of my broad areas of interest controlled by a separate account. My thinking was that it would be easier to look up and manage the various articles I was writing. I had each account open in a separate browser to manage this experiment, hence the quick toggling between edits.
My efforts were not always successful, and I did manage to edit from the wrong account at times, but overall if you look at the various edits that I make, I am not beefing up articles with edits from various account, and I am trying to separate them from each other. The opposite of sockpuppeting.
'Wrong' account means, as I said above I am trying to keep things separate, and confusion can occur, as it did at that point and I intended to defend myself from the same account that wrote the article, which is why when I came back to write from the account that authored the article (the correct article) I wrote it as a 'comment' and not as a vote to 'keep' the article which would have been really suspicious.
The Smellytap name has been effectively decommissioned, and now that I know I cannot delete it, once this is over I will be logging out and never coming back (the only reason I was still logged in was I was looking for how to delete the account)
It is clear that I cannot keep the various accounts as they are without stumbling, so I am also happy to leave them behind and start a new account.
Again looking at the histories of the other accounts, there is almost no crossover between the articles managed (and those that did occur are entirely by error), they were meant to be completely separate, and not crossing over in their edits
As to the meatpuppeting, she has her own mind and has only defended me on one article that I have written that she feels passionate about, otherwise you may have seen her on other talk pages. You have no reason to believe me, but neither do I have reason to lie or anything to cover up in this matter. (Smellytap (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Administrator note Having reviewed the edits of this user and their other accounts, I am inclined to reject this block appeal. We've heard all these claims in some form or another on 1,000s of block appeals. Meatpuppetry is also a blockable infringement of policy and I'm not convinced that the edits are entirely independent of each other. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a venue for passionate editing articles whether or not the articles are positive or negative towards the subject (see: WP:TEND). (FYI: JamesBWatson). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Very often I agree with Kudpung's administrative judgements, but this time I disagree. Firstly, MorkMan74. Above, I said that I would "assume" that she was a different person, but in fact I have noticed distinct differences between that account's editing and that of all the other accounts involved, so I do actually believe that she is not the same person as the other accounts. I agree with Kudpung that the editing is not entirely independent, but "meatpuppetry" is one of the most difficult aspects of Wikipedia policy to apply. Calling in other people to give support to one's editing in order to give the misleading impression of support from independent other editors is of course unacceptable, but is it reasonable to interpret the policy as forbidding any editing by two people who know one another, have discussed issues relating to editing, and have a degree of agreement about what is desirable? I really don't see the relationship between MorkMan74's and Smellytap's editing as abusive, if they are two different people, and as I have already said, I believe that they are.

Yes, we have all heard similar claims before, often in situations where they are clearly false, and that must lead to a degree of scepticism when we hear them again. However, a degree of scepticism does not mean rejecting them on the basis of past experience without considering this case on its own merits. If we look at all the edits from the various accounts, there is a significant degree of overlap in pages edited by different accounts, but if we disregard edits made by the Smellytap account before the other accounts were made, the amount of overlap is tiny, and can easily be explained by a few accidental edits, as stated above. Also, we have to consider whether the use of multiple accounts was in any way abusive. As mentioned above, there was only one case (two edits to the same deletion discussion) where I can see any way at at all that anyone could think there was a problem. Certainly the double posting there was unacceptable, but even if we choose to disbelieve that it was an honest mistake, I have seen sockpuppeteers who have made far more abusive use of multiple accounts than that unblocked on the basis of their assurances that they won't do it again, and if it was an honest mistake then Smellytap's promise to use only one account in future should deal with it.

Personally I think we should assume good faith, and the whole thing looks worse than it really is because of a few honest mistakes. (I myself once accidentally edited without logging in, in a way which would have been abusive had it been done intentionally. I realised immediately, replaced my IP signature with my account's signature, and requested oversight of my mistake. An editor with less experience of how Wikipedia works might not realise the importance of rectifying such a mistake.) However, even if anyone doesn't believe the explanation given, we have an editor who has offered to edit with only one account from now on, and to avoid doing again the things which led to suspicion, and, as I have already said, I have known many cases of unambiguous abusive sockpuppeteers who have been unblocked to be given another chance, after doing far worse than this. I believe we should unblock this account, at the most with the condition of using only one account from now on.

@Bbb23: You placed this CheckUser block, so any comment from you would be very welcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, I never mind at all when you have a different opinion from mine, so I'll not stand in the way of a possible unblock. Let's see what Bbb23 has to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am dead set against unblocking this user. I don't believe that he didn't know exactly what he was doing. This is not a case of meat puppetry. This is a case of intentional socking. His comments, hidden behind a veneer of civility, are self-serving and arrogant. He wouldn't mind "deleting" the "suspected" socks. Although never naming the accounts he created, he admits to socking. How are they "suspected"? Given the relatively small number of edits of each of the accounts (the Smellytap account has the most, about 300, but the others are all fewer than 40), there is a significant amount of page intersection among the accounts, apparently all caused by Smellytap making "mistakes" in his experiment. As to his statement about each account was for one of his "broad areas of interest", he must view his interests very differently from the way I do. His focus is mainly on Australian Jews and also on Jewish-related articles more generally, either directly or indirectly. He appears to have his own biases in this regard and his own agenda, often aggressively arguing with other users. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Yemini, where he (and his wife) voted Keep and argued with other users who disagreed with them. One editor stated with reason: "Between Smellytap and MorkMan74, this getting very close to badgering." At Sexual abuse incidents at Adass Israel School, Melbourne, three of the accounts edited the article. The best I'm willing to do is reconsider an unblock request at six months per WP:SO.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to concur with Bbb23 on this because he has in fact exposed the very details of what I hinted at above with WP:TEND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, Bbb23, it has been very helpful.
I confess I had been focusing so much on the question of sockpuppetry that I had tended to forget the other issues, which you have now reminded me of. Whether Smellytap's explanation of the "suspected socks" is correct or not, the other points Bbb23 makes about "aggressively arguing with other users" and "his own biases" are ones which I too had been concerned about, but more or less forgotten as I concentrated on checking the editing history to investigate the sockpuppet issue. I am not at all sure about the sockpuppetry, but I am sure about the tendentious editing and the somewhat belligerent approach to other editors. Combining my own doubts with the facts that Bbb23 and Kudpung are both against an unblock, and that Jpgordon has already declined an unblock request, I think it all adds up to a consensus that this editor should not be unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Smellytap has admitted using multiple accounts: "The multiple accounts was an attempt by me to have each of my broad areas of interest controlled by a separate account. My thinking was that it would be easier to look up and manage the various articles I was writing. I had each account open in a separate browser to manage this experiment, hence the quick toggling between edits."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to some of the points that you have all made. At the moment I have no reason to believe that you will change your minds, but I do want to address them in any case.

I have said my piece about why I had different accounts, and I have not run away from that fact. I can tell you again that it was innocent and the failure to disclose was a lack of experience, but that would be rehashing an old argument, and you have absolutely no reason to believe me just because I say it again.
The aggressive arguing comes from two places - first a tendency to be on other social media, where the tenor of debate can get out of control very easily, and second from a frustration at topics that are significant and shaping the community I am writing about being dismissed because the 'paper trail' is not strong enough. Knowing now more about the way Wikipedia works now after this experience, I would put in an effort to leave my natural cynicism and bluntness behind in debates.
I have attempted to write every article in a balanced fashion, and I have tried to be balanced. It is not biased to point out people's flaws, and within the community I am writing about there have been a series of major scandals over the years. Leaving them out would be akin to ignoring sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. That I do not succeed is my failing, but it is not deliberate. It could be argued that the sanitized articles are biased for ignoring the negative. I also do not always know the full story, and I welcome more informed people than me coming to help me write the articles.

As said above this is mostly irrelevant, since you have made your mind up. I have enjoyed editing and would relish the opportunity to be permitted to continue editing. The only question remains where to from here? The block is indefinite, does that mean never? Does that mean re-applying in 1 month? 6 months? (Smellytap (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Standard offer. BTW, Wikipedia is not a social media. What we discuss on talk pages, AfD, and noticeboards is all about the work we do. An encyclopedia is is not a platform for furthering a cause so we do understand that it's sometimes not easy for editors of articles about sensitive issues to remain neutral and dispassionate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment

Just to be clear about this, I declined the unblock request because there is a substantial consensus among administrators that it should be declined. Personally, however, despite doubts about some aspects of your editing, I would have been willing to give you another chance. Kudpung mentioned Wikipedia:Standard offer, which basically means he is suggesting that you can apply to be unblocked in six months from now. You may like to take that offer up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of the things I have learned in the past little while is how to 'read' the mood of a Wiki discussion. It was never going to go well for me, but I do appreciate your support. For the moment there is a Wikisource project I have been ignoring for a few years. I will give that a bash and try back in a few months. (Smellytap (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Avi Yemini

Hello, Smellytap. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Avi Yemini".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yaron Gottlieb (rabbi) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yaron Gottlieb (rabbi) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaron Gottlieb (rabbi) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The discussion around my sockpuppetry seemed to be rather abruptly halted and decided against me even though most of the discussion surrounded other accounts. I have been editing for a while under the account Playlet without incident, and without any intent to create any further sockpuppets. This clearly demonstrates that I have can answer the question "do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site, and can we have your assurance that you won't do it again?" with absolute certainty. There are also other mitigating factors in my actions that I am not comfortable discussing online, but would welcome the opportunity to respond to.Smellytap (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your abuse of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE with your block-evading sockpuppet account, Playlet, demonstrates you continue to be unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies. Yamla (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2022 (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.

@Yamla: As I mentioned there are other circumstances that are involved in this case but that I cannot talk about publicly. I would appreciate the opportunity to put that part of my case to you via email.Smellytap (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]