User talk:PranakanLegion

December 2010[edit]

This account appears to be engaged in sockpuppetry to promote a minority viewpoint against WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. I've asked Fainites to provide more information. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person appears to not like my additions. I have taken several workshops here by Dr. BW and they have been helpful. I was doing some research for my place of employment on complex trauma and found that page and noted that information on DDP was not there. As I commented, there is more evidence (one or two studies) to support DDP but none for Narrative Attachment Therapy, so if that one is listed DDP certainly should be mentioned, Yes?

PranakanLegion (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the discussions are moving along. If you would like others to participate as well, WP:DR covers the many ways to get others involved. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ronz, the discussion is not moving along. This fainites appears to be acting in bad faith and makes personal attacks and is not following wiki policies. Ronz, this fainites continues to respond with bad faith and makes personal accusations, see talk page for Complex post traumatic stress disorder where fainites says, "As stated I believe you to be a sock of a longterm sockpuppeteer and banned user who repeatedly attempts to add DDP to articles usually with inadequate or inappropriate sourcing. DDP has one old study using inadequate methodology, plus 4 year follow-up. It falls far below any wiki standard required to start including it as any kind of mainstream treatment on either this page or the Attachment-based therapy (children) page. Fainites barleyscribs 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)" This is bad faith. I don't understand why he acts as if he owns this page and is do vehement about DDP. My reading of the standards for inclusion in an article is that with all the citations I listed it is clearly adequate. My edit is sources and NPOV. This fainites appears to be manufacturing criteria that have nothing to do with written wiki policies. PranakanLegion (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you the link to dispute resolution. WP:NPOVN might be a good place to get others' help with the content dispute.

As for the sockpuppetry concerns, I've started a discussion here.

I suggest that you focus on content, and keep the sockpuppetry and behavioral discussions separate from the content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually PL I am simply stating up-front what I believe to be the position. It would only be bad faith if, for example, I pretended to believe you were a sockpuppet, knowing you weren't or had no reason to believe you were a sockpuppet. However, I believe you are and so I have said so and filed for an investigation. If you have any complaints you can take it to WP:ANI. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

I haved filed a request for a sock-puppet investigation. You can find it here at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson. There is a section on the page for you to say whatever you want to say. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you harassing me? because you disagree with my edit and own the two pages on which I've edited. I believe that to be the case. Your link here leads no where, so how do I respond if you make claims and provide me no forum to comment? PranakanLegion (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did lead to the investigation when I put it here. Presumably the case was dealt with before you responded. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not see why I was blocked? I do see that Mr. fainites has a disagreement with me and seems to feel ownership of the two pages I added material to in compliance with the wiki NPOV and reverence requirements or policies. Why I am no sock and if you review my edits you can see they are NPOV and meet all wiki criteria, while Mr. fainites removal has no basis in policy and both he and his colleague mr. ronz engaged in personal attacks of me and made bad faith statements.PranakanLegion (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Is it possible that you misunderstood the term 'sock?' It's internet slang for the use of multiple accounts- you are not permitted to use even two accounts at Wikipedia, and certainly not the large number of accounts you appear to have used. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:39, 14 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what a sock is. However, this is my one and only account. I don't understand this accusation of having "the large number of accounts you appear to have used." I have only used this one account. Has someone else used my IP address? Is that the problem? If so I do request to be able to edit. Thank you. PranakanLegion (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence is strongly against you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:27, 15 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

May I see the evidence, or is this a secret based on the statements of mr. fainites and his friend mr. ronz? Thank you. PranakanLegion (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no secret at all. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson/Archive explains the basis of the block at the bottom of the page. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:11, 18 December 2010 (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.