User talk:Felix utah

To Whom it may Concern,

An open letter to Wikipedia Investigators, the public.

I am new to the contributor end of Wikipedia. I am a mechanical and software engineer by trade, but the user system here is a bewildering to say the least.

EDIT: After further research, I have attempted to implement an [unblock] request and a [Template:User shared IP address|Alexislevitt] to clarify the IP address similarity between myself and user Alexis L. I hope that these are helpful.

How can i respond to a Sockpuppet investigation? Do I have a right to response?

"Welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad you're here! Thank you for your first response. Now GET OUT Sockpuppet!" =) How rude!

I imagine that it is common for a new user to make their first edit on a topic with which they are familiar. Is it also common to ban their account after one day if they do so?

Last week, a friend of mine asked me to look at a Wikipedia page of a local artist who he had worked with in the past. I am active in a number of artistic groups in Salt Lake City & I take a personal interest in Utah culture. I have worked with the Utah Humanities Council, Salt Lake TEDx, and many local artists. These facts can be easily verified via Google, Linkedin, local newspapers, or any similar means.

The Wikipedia page and group in question have been Utah mainstays for a few decades. They regularly participate in a variety of events and are well documented by local newspapers, University groups, and so forth. I have visited a couple of their presentations in the past few years. I am not well acquainted with them, but I have met them on a couple occasions at their shows for a few brief minutes. We are not friends, and I am not their sockpuppet.

But you must be familiar with the concept of 6 degrees of separation. It is hard to throw a stone in Utah without finding someone you know, especially in our small artistic communities. I do not feel that being acquainted with someone bars you from impartially documenting 3rd party sources that have commented on their work. and it certainly doesn't make you a sockpuppet to do so.

At any rate, following the request that I look at this page, I mentioned the project to a few friends that are also active contributors to various Utah artistic communities. One was a friend of mine, Alexis who lives in my apartment building (and I suspect she steals my WiFi)- which is neither here nor there- she is welcome to use it- but it looks like our similar IP address might be part of the problem? We spoke about Another Language for a bit prior to my visit to Wikipedia to look at their page. So it is likely that we have similar ideas about sources. I never saw her edits, but I cant imagine that they contain any conflicts of interest. I cant believe that this is the basis of the original claim- but it appears that it is.

My changes to the Wikipedia page were all documented by citations to local newspapers. I added a brief paragraph at the bottom of the intro, but the rest of my additions were purely citations for existing page content pointing to established large Utah state newspapers. It was my objective to be impartial and only cite reputable established 3rd party sources. I feel that my work was consistent with these standards.

Why I was blocked after a single day? It negates any argument that I am a sockpuppet if my account is deleted before I can participate in other pages, and if this is done with a disregard to the actual content that I added to this page. As a fact- you can not doubt that my citations are anything but impartial and from reputable impartial established 3rd parties.

The original concern was that the page was not relevant and lacked verified sources. Members of our community started to make an effort to remedy this, then 2 of our first accounts are blocked. That seems improper and to be in conflict with the best interest of Wikipedia and myself as a new user. I question the true intent of whatever source initiated this disciplinary action.

I wish that it was easier to identify a method of recourse here. I have been going in circles on the Wikipedia user page for hours, and have found no indication of how to respond to these claims. It simply states that an investigation was initiated (likely by a software algorithm due to similar IP addresses), and that an Investigator will look at it. But how can they accurately or fairly assess the case with little or no evidence?

Thank you for your time. I will continue my efforts to identify a proper recourse to these charges.

Respectfully, Felix D Felix utah (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

new shared IP userbox
Lets try this. I have confirmed that Wikipedia editor AlexisLevitt uses my WiFi, and our IP addresses both come from my same ISP account.

How do i implement this Userbox to clarify this user relationship?

Felix utah (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

goodness this is complicated.

i feel that the decision by OhNoitsJamie did not give due consideration to my claims. but i appreciate that admins have earned authority, that they must process cases by volume, and i accept their decisions.

but more than that, i appreciate the process. as a long-time user and new contributor, i appreciate your position. i am sad to have to defend my right to contribute prior to doing so, but i will work for it, i will earn it, and i hope that a single conscientious admin will grant me the same courtesy as the rest of the Wikipedia community. heck, the fact that i am fighting, and the fact that my account is still active, proves that there is still potential here.

unblock request guidelines: 1) the block is not necessary (violates block guidelines); 2) the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; 3) that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block

under article 1: ignore all rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means static rules are irrelevant, the spirit of Wikipedia supersedes trivial implementations. i was asked to add references to content on a single page. i did so. i substantiated a page, and increased the value of Wikipedia content. this was unbiased and impartial. it helped the page and the greater understanding of the topic. this effort is valuable. if i am accused of being a sockpuppet: you are wrong. if you want to accuse me of being a meatpuppet (which is a separate claim, and must be addressed as such) because i am aware of the persons discussed on the page, then i reply: look at the actual content of my posts- i only added impartial 3rd party citations and verifiable 3rd party analysis.

under article 2: i understand the original claim that my opinion was similar to that of user Alexis L. i have added an IP address disclaimer to my account. her account was blocked when mine was, and she will no longer use her account. as stated in my original claim: feel free to Google, facebook, Linkedin us as users, we are distinct unrelated persons. i have since spoken to her. she has not challenged her block claim, and will no longer use her account. you win, she will not contribute to Wikipedia.

you will only deal with me now. i will contribute to Utah Wikipedia content NOT related to the page in question. i will build my credibility. i will not participate in/contest your deletion of the page in question (even though i do sincerely feel that this choice is arbitrary, capricious, and wrong). i accept your decision on this topic.

under article 3: as stated in item 2 above, and in my prior post, i accept that my IP similarity to user Alexis L was suspicious. her account is gone, she will not appeal your decision. i have added an IP disclaimer to my account.

this was a misunderstanding.

unblock my account. see what i do. if i ever repeat any aspect of this offense, then ban me and every IP in my zip code forever. but if i contribute meaningful content, then accept that my claims are valid, and i am committed to enhancing Wikipedia content for the Utah community.

Felix utah (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)