User talk:Comptetemporaire2015

ANI
Thanks for your e-mail, however I don't see the need to amend the blocks, however I will link the ANI thread to the sock category thread/user pages once it has been finalised and archived. GiantSnowman 14:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see a strong need to amend the blocks. There is a difference between the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose (WP:SOCK) and legitimate use of different accounts (WP:VALIDALT). As I wrote per e-mail, the way you have modified my presentation page is hiding the fact that my presentation page was mentioning the name of my previous account. It is highly disappointing.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The block message does not say you have been abusing multiple accounts. GiantSnowman 15:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to insist, but the block message is misleading, and the addition of the sockpuppet tag and category are clearly improper.
 * you blocked 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 with the justification "admitted to be Pseudois, see ongoin ANI", (here and here). I have not "admitted" such thing at ANI, as I had long before clearly mentioned in my presentation page that I was the same user who had contributed between 2010 and 2013 as pseudois (last edit in 2013 on en.wp).
 * This is a legitimate use of an alternative account, it does not violate any WP policy and, as per WP:VALIDALT, "These accounts are not sockpuppets".
 * Through this edit on my presentation page, you have deleted the reference I had made to my previous account, and three minutes later you made another edit with the mention "admitted at ANI"!
 * Sock puppetry is defined as "the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" (see first sentence of WP:SOCK). No abuse or improper use have ever been associated to my account. The block does not refer to any of the criteria mentioned under WP:BLOCK either.
 * I therefore kindly request a revert of this block for alleged sock puppetry and a restoration of my user page with its original unaltered presentation. If a category needs to be added to my account, then "Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts" would apply, but certainly not "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pseudois"
 * Thank you, --Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the accounts have not been blocked for sockpuppetry, however I see the tagging could be misleading - I'll amend. GiantSnowman 10:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do read "Sock" in your edit summary, see here and here. Thanks for finally removing these infamous templates, but I still see three main issues:
 * Not only has User:6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 presentation page not been restored (thus suggesting I did not disclose my former account), but a similar blanking of the previous page was made on the user:pseudois presentation page. I have no problem with your additions, but I do not accept your blanking of the information previously included in my presentation page, could you please revert?
 * The erroneous allegations of "sock" and "admitted at ANI" are still visible in my page history, see here and here. Is a courtesy blanking possible?
 * The "block log" and "user contribution" pages do still mention invalid reasons ("admitted to be Pseudois" or "account has been abandoned", see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) that do not match with any criteria of WP:BLOCK. I am requesting that all three accounts shall be unblocked to make it clear that these reasons are not applying. These three accounts can then be blocked again (if your are willing to perform a self-requested-block) with the mention "blocked upon user own request", as it is was done at commons and fr.wp, see 1, 2, 3, 4. If your are not willing to perform such block, then please just let these accounts unblocked, and I may ask another admin willing to perform this self-requested-block.
 * Thank you,--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not be changing the reasons for your block as the reasons are valid. You have admitted to being Pseudois and you have abandoned the accounts (why else have 4, especially 3 in a few days?). Blocking is standard in such cases, to prevent any users tempted to log into the old accounts to mis-use them. I used 'sock' as an edit summary when initially tagging the user pages, though I have now removed them, but I see no reason to REVDEL the edit summary. Nowhere in your block logs does it allege sockpuppetry. By all means feel free to make these requests of another admin, if they change it so be it, however I see no reason to. GiantSnowman 13:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)