User talk:Janwww

Teahouse reply
Now I have been been blocked and accused of sock puppetry - what on earth can I do about this - wikipedia has my email address and my real name, but I can't seem to contact anyone to ask for help - am not even expecting this to send. All because I wanted to read a section which someone (the same person) kept deleting. Please help ! Janet

Janwww (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were blocked by Materialscientist, who might be able to advise. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. I can't do that - the only place I seem to be able to communicate is on this page (ie Editing User talk:Janwww ) - I can't even communicate on the Teahouse directly. I tried contacting yourself and Materialscientist on your talk pages but am blocked. I tried to look through postings on Materialscientist's page for the details of my blocking but couldn't find them. I have been blocked for (nicely) following advice I was given on Teahouse. NB Janet is my real name and my email address gives my real surname. I am definitely a real person ! What do I need to do to prove it ? I did create a User Profile and it is still there. It is very basic as I never put a lot of information about myself openly on the web - I am not of a generation that does this. Please advise what I should do. I am not the person behaving badly here, that would be the person who keeps undo-ing other people's posts and seems to possibly be running a Wikipedia page as his/her own personal blog. NB this is the first time I have suggested this - it is not why I was blocked. I was blocked for simply suggesting that it is wrong for this person to keep blocking posts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trolleybus ). I probably should have added this to these requests for help  as I think I need the help of an Administrator, but not Materialscientist as I have a feeling that this person could be linked to the person who keeps undoing people's posts. But thanks for replying to me - at least I am in contact with someone on Wikipedia. Janet Janwww (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are blocked because you created this account to continue the edit war at Trolleybus. The technical data confirms this. If you wish to be unblocked, you should log into your original account and post an unblock request there. Yunshui 雲 水 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Yunshui says, checkuser data identified you, Count Belasarius and Southendrainbow as being the same account user. That is what you have been blocked for, not for asking a question at the Teahouse. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please can someone other than Materialscientist check the checkuser data again - I am definitely not the same person as Southendrainbow or Count_Belasarius. I have only ever had one user name Janwww and one password. I previousy used these to make one or two (non controversial) additions on scientific pages and to make donations. For some reason the account seemed to have disappeared and so I created a new one but with the same details including the user name, password and email address. So definitely no sock puppetry (I had to look up what that meant). And definitely no alias accounts. Janet is my real name, my real surname is in my email address which wikipedia has. All I am guilty of is for asking nicely about continual deletions of the same material as I wanted to read it - and I said openly why I wanted to read it. I was advised I could find the deleted posting in the revisions and was going to just do that (read my posts - I actually said this) but was told that I had as much right as anyone to try to suggest that it shouldn't have been deleted, did just that (nicely) and was blocked from Wikipedia by Materialscientist. I can't even contact Materialscientist to discuss the block as I am blocked from everywhere but this page. I feel bullied and abused and am very surprised at how (unfairly) Wikipedia is victimising me. NB I posted my IP address by mistake on Teahouse as I got logged out by mistake - I removed it (as I didn't want to display it openly) but you will find it in the revisions so you have that. If either Southendrainbow or Count_Belasarius failed to log in at any time, you will have their IP addresses too so you will be able to confirm I am not the same person(s). Also Wikipedia cannot confirm I am the same person as them as I am not. Incidentally, Materialscientist seems to be monitoring the Trolleybus page for the benefit of the poster Anmccaff (Scroll up a few entries from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Materialscientist#User:Janwww to the entry " A couple of sock questions ") so maybe it is Materialscientist that the Wikipedia should be asking questions about and not an elderly female like myself who believes in peace not war. NB so far the only advice I have had is to log into my original account - as said I can't do that as I have only one account. But will see if I can enter into discussion about the block using this account. Janet Janwww (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably your best option is to have a read of Guide to appealing blocks and to request an appeal. An administrator will then look into your case. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, this is the only place I can post - I haven't found anywhere else on Wikipedia that I can post. I have something ready to post, but keep getting editing conflicts as I am not quick enough in posting it. But thanks for your help. Janet Janwww (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realise that this is the only place you can post. That's the case with blocks. The appeal request should go here, so that's not a barrier to posting one, as I see you've worked out from the below. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Janwww, you didn't provide a reason for your unblock so I copied your latest statement and included it as a reason. Meanwhile I'll ping in case they wanted to respond to you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Liz - I meant my latest statement (from "I have been wrongly blocked by someone called Materialscientist" down to "Please ask if you need further information from me." to be my statement - I am confused that you thought it wasn't, but thanks for adding it to my request for an unblock. I do think that Materialscientist is probably biased for some reason, but good to give them a chance to reply as maybe it was an honest mistake on their part. Janet Janwww (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist is an administrator in good standing, and in general it is best to assume good faith rather than accusing other editors of being biased, unless you have strong evidence. Hopefully your request will be looked into soon in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the editing history, and it seems to me that this account is a sockpuppet. However, rather than immediately declining the unblock request, I am willing to reconsider, if you can point me to where Materialscientist made the statements you say he made, so that I can see them in their context. I have tried searching his contribution history, but I can't find where he has stated that you are the same person as Southendrainbow or Count Belasarius, nor where he stated that you had crested a new account to carry on an edit war on Trolleybus. Can you tell me when or where he made those statements? The editor who uses theruit pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anastasia [Missionedit] - thanks for your welcome. Sadly I am blocked and it seems likely to remain so, so am not able to reply to you anywhere else and am not sure you will see this. NB I am absolutely not asking you to get involved, it seems to be easier to shoot me than to admit that the person who blocked me made a mistake and I definitely don't want to cause you problems but didn't want to ignore your kind message. Love your neighbour is a good motto - I think a lot more of it is needed on Wikipedia ! Janet xx Janwww (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I should have pinged you so you would see the above - am still at the bottom of my learning curve. Because I am blocked I am not even able to change the mistake I made on my Guest page picture (I thought this was where I should post my question, deleted the question but didn't notice that the question title had replaced my user name as displayed above the picture, also I didn't confirm the picture (and it keeps changing) but I don't suppose it matters as I am not likely to be unblocked any time soon as it seems they don't unblock people accused of being sockpuppets. Though if you could do something about the Guest Page entry that it would be amazing. Any non-aggressive fruit or flower type picture would be fine - I visited the Guest House at 19:04, 21 September 2015, search the page for Janet and the Logo " I really would like World Peace " Currently it is displaying a tropical bird, which is OK, but the picture changes. I give you full authority to make suitable changes if you are allowed to. Thanks. Janet xx Janwww (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)  Sorry I see now that someone has tidied it up for me and there is no silly title displaying where my user name should be - thanks if this was you  Janet xx Janwww (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Materialscientist - please will you contact me to tell me exactly why you blocked me. I have second hand accounts from other moderators but I need you to tell me directly please, together with your full reasons. Also what I can do to unblock my account. I have only just seen that I can contact you this way - I thought I had to wait for you to contact me. Thankyou. Janet Janwww (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear JamesBWatson, I am sorry that you chose to find against me after giving me only 3 hours to reply and without warning me that I would have such a short time. As you will be aware, I have had no direct contacts from Materialscientist who blocked me (any contact would show on my talk page), despite the fact that I have asked through others for him to contact me; I didn’t realise until this morning that I could ping him from my talk page and as you know I am blocked from all other pages. However i am not expecting him to reply. I have had only second-hand statements as to why I have been blocked, made by others who have posted on my Talk page (see comments from Yunshui and Liz above). Also the initial kind notification from Cordless Larry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Materialscientist#User:Janwww ) without which I wouldn’t have even known I had been blocked as I wouldn’t have posted again so the issue wouldn’t have arisen. My information about others and about my block has come from these statements and from trawling links on Wikipedia. I do not know my co-accused (Southendrainbow or Count_Belasarius) or rather I don't know their identities so I don't even know if I know them or not. I hope that it is not common on Wikipedia for someone to be blocked permanently after making one non-offensive edit on a content page and one non-offensive comment on a talk page, especially when the person is so clearly not a threat to the functioning of Wikipedia and has posted as honestly as I have on Wikipedia about their actions prior to being accused. I could apologise for what I have not done, and indeed had started to do so, but that would not be a constructive course of action as it just encourages treatment such as I have received. The real fault here is of course the title of the Trolleybus page which indicates a wider content on this page than seems to be intended. The simplest way to sort my block would be for the Checkuser team to properly investigate and confirm that there have not been postings from multiple accounts on the Trolleybus site from my IP address, but I suppose it is easier just to block me ( indeed it indicates on the Blocks help page that not seeking proof is normal Wikipedia procedure when people are accused of being sockpuppets - Wikipedia may well lose some good editors as a result though). Janet Janwww (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
I have read your messages above, and despite my strong suspicion of sockpuppetry, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith as far as was reasonable, so I spent a considerable amount of my time carefully checking relevant editing history, and writing and editing a fairly long message to you, explaining the reasons for what I did, commenting in detail on how possible mistakes might have led to the case not being dealt with as well as it might, inviting two CheckUsers to comment on the technical evidence, and suggesting to you what you might now do to give yourself the best chance of being unblocked. I was close to saving the message, when I noticed one of the comments you have posted, which clearly and without any doubt at all indicated that you had previously edited from one or more other accounts. You can perhaps imagine how totally pissed off I felt to realise that the considerable time and work I had spent were completely wasted. If you had in the first instance had the guts to admit what you had done and undertake not to do it again, you might have had a reasonable chance of being unblocked, but any such chance now must be remote. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * JamesBWatson, this is unbelievable. In the past 2 years I have only ever edited from (once) directly from my IP address without logging in, and once from my IP address via my own account with logging in (Janwww) - this last on the page's talk page and not directly on the dictionary page. How on earth would I edit from someone else's account ? (also I am housebound and disabled and never use a computer anywhere but at home). It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to have definitive evidence that I have edited from another account. Could you please tell me what evidence you are referring to. Please justify your allegations against me - this is all so unpleasant that you owe me that. I haven't checked back on this page to see what you are referring to because I HAVEN'T done it. I do not like being victimised, especially when nothing has been achieved by it as I had no intention of posting on that page again (and it has probably cured me of ever wanting to post anywhere on Wikipedia in case the same attacks happen).  This really is approaching where I am going to ask for someone else to investigate both yourself and Materialscientist, not only in relation to my case but also in relation to the other moderating work you are doing to see if there is a pattern here. I would normally walk away from things like this but you are making it impossible with your allegations. Incidentally, Materialscientist who started all this still hasn't had the courtesy to contact me and explain directly why they blocked me and surely I deserved at least that. I also think that I now deserve for the Checkuser team to do an actual IP address check to see if there is any truth in your allegations. Thankyou. Janet Janwww (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Janwww, with this edit you commented that "But every time I try someone with the name of Anmccaff keeps deleting it as soon as I know it is there" (emphasis added), and yet you have only edited the Trolleybus article once using this account. If this had happened more than once, as your comment suggests, then you must have made the previous edits using another account. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cordless Larry, thank you SO much for explaining that ! The whole sentence is "I am trying to read a really interesting article ........  But every time I try someone with the name of Anmccaff keeps deleting it as soon as I know it is there."  I found it, started to read it, but then couldn't find it again. But later I refreshed the page and it was back - then as I started reading it, it disappeared again. I saw there was a history, looked in the history, saw there seemed to be people fighting over it, wanted to read it and a bit stupidly (in the circumstances) put it back, asking for it to be left long enough for people to read it. But it wasn't. I realised that I shouldn't undo the deletion again (and really shouldn't have done it the first time), tried to leave a message to ask if I could read it but it wouldn't let me without my logging in but when I tried to log in it said there was no-one with my user name (I was sure about my user name, I had it written down). So I rejoined using this same user name and password. I don't remember why I put my question in the Teashop and not on the Trolley page - or maybe I thought I was on the Trolley page, or didn't yet know about the Trolley talk page, I just don't remember. This is the question you have all seen and the question the above quote is from. I actually think having read the article that it wasn't appropriate to add all this material (though I suppose it is possible that Mackius felt that as it was a translated article the fair thing would be to include all of it), but the thing to do would have been for Anmccaff to talk about it with Mackius rather than deleting it, and arrive at consensus. It might have been appropriate to add some of the article as the “disadvantages” section on the English Trolleybus page is really poor. Though I wouldn't dare to suggest that now ! So, can you help with this to get me unblocked, now you know ? I should be so grateful. This is the problem with not being able to talk to people - written material can be so easily mis-understood. It isn't the blocking I mind about, it's the principle of being blocked unfairly. I also think this raises lots of questions about blocking on Wikipedia if I could be blocked so easily with very little I could do about it - if you hadn't helped now probably no-one would have. And if I hadn't been in contact with you on Teashop (and you hadn't been a kind person willing to help) you wouldn't have been there to help. Any way a really big Thankyou. Best wishes, Janet Janwww (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could rejoin using the same username and password. Once a username has been used, it can't be re-registered. There are also many hours between the edits, so your story about refreshing the page and things appearing and disappearing that many times in such a short period doesn't make sense either. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't understand the user name thing either, but I can only tell you it happened. I also don't understand how my original account could have disappeared - but it had. I have tried to look back to when I made the last donation so someone could check from that but I can't have written it down and must have made it from a credit card and not from my bank account. All I can tell you is that it did appear and disappear - look at the history page and you will see what happened. I found it on the 20th, but it disappeared. I refreshed the page later and it was back but as I started to read it disappeared. It was late (we are a number of hours ahead here in the UK - it was around 11 pm here BST) - so I left it and undid it to read it the next evening - but it disappeared as I tried to read it. The simplest thing is for Checkuser to check IP addresses and that will show if I am telling the truth or not. The Wikipedia rules say people should assume good faith - but no-one is assuming good faith about me. Janet Janwww (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what payment has to do with it. There is no payment involved in creating an account. Users should assume good faith in the absence of clear evidence, but from the comments above it seems that checkuser has confirmed the suspicions of sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser hasn't confirmed sockpuppetry from my IP address because that would be impossible. I made donation of £30 from my account - that is what I paid. I won't be donating again ! Janet Janwww (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, here is proof I had my user name previously. Go to the history page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Authorisation_Code That is, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Migration_Authorisation_Code&offset=&limit=250&action=history ''(cur | prev) 01:08, 23 January 2009‎ Janwwww (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,068 bytes) (+250)‎. . (→‎Problems: Added - Ref re Pipex failure to supply MACs 2008, Added - info on getting MAC if ISP genuinely cannot provide it) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:19, 23 January 2009‎ Janwwww (talk | contribs)‎. . (5,818 bytes) (+1,795)‎. . (→‎Problems: Added - info on how to get your MAC if your ISP cannot provide this.) (undo)'' I had a lot of trouble when our ISP scammed us, taking our money and then going bust. Lots of problems getting a MAC code to get a new service set up with another ISP as we didn't still have an active Broadband service and I thought that what I had painstakingly found out might be of use to others. I don't seem to have kept any record of my donations though. I made one or two similar small edits but these ones are enough for the purpose of showing there was a previous Janwww account (though I don't suppose it proves it was mine ! Though I do have a record of making this edit on my laptop, which is how I found this record on Wkipedia.) Please assume good faith. Oh, I see it now, as I bolded the Janwwww for this message I saw there are 4 w's not 3 - that explains why I couldn't log in - I had misread what I had written. I have got 4 w's saved as my original user name. The IP address for this would be different of course as we had a different router in 2009 - we have Virgin cable now - but the email address will be the same. I also have a different laptop now. But anyway, this account is a red herring as it hasn't been used recently (which you are welcome to check). Though no doubt you will all block that account now anyway. Janet Janwww (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

'''Please can Checkuser do an IP address check to confirm that I have only edited a dictionary page once in the past 2 years or so and that I am not guilty of sockpuppetry. Thank you. These continued wrongful accusations are wasting everyone's time and could easily be sorted.''' Janet Janwww (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)