User talk:Marriage of Convenience

May 2014
Hello, I'm McGeddon. Your recent edit to the page Illegal immigration in the United Kingdom appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Marriage of Convenience, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As you must have expected, this account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on other accounts. I actually have some sympathy with your wish to neutralise what you perceive as the effects of a concerted effort to promote a point of view via Wikipedia, and that is part of the reason that I declined an earlier request to take action against one of your other accounts. However, you seem unable to see that almost everything you do is counterproductive, and merely serves to put yourself in the spotlight for disruptive editing. In particular, every time you create a sockpuppet account, you make it less likely that you will be able to achieve anything, because edits by your sockpuppets are likely to be reverted, and the more of a history of sockpuppetry you have, the less likely it becomes that any eventual unblock request on your original account will ever be accepted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.


 * 1) You clearly haven't studied the history of my editing on this matter, if you think that I "do not appear to be considering" the problems with the editing by supporters of "Brahma Kumaris" or that I am "blind" to the problems. Indeed, my concern with those problems was a large part of my decision some time ago not to block another anti-Brahma Kumari account, even though it looked very likely to be a sockpuppet. I am indeed very much concerned about the editing by those editors, and considering what can be done about it. However, the administrator assessing your unblock request will do so on the basis of what you have done, and not what other editors have done that you disagree with, nor whether I am or am not considering what those other editors have been doing. I suggest that, if this unblock request is declined, before considering whether to post another one, you take the advice above to read the guide to appealing blocks, particularly the section WP:NOTTHEM.
 * 2) I can assure you that in deciding to block this account I took into account a number of aspects of your editing, not just the fact that you agree with other editors who have been blocked, including some features of your editing which you are evidently completely blind to, which is fortunate, because it means you can't disguise them. What is more, since this block, further evidence linking this account to others has come to light.
 * 3) I really really think it is most unfortunate that you keep trying to evade your block by means of sockpuppets. If instead you would consider the reasons for the block on your original account, and make an unblock request for that account, addressing those reasons, without attacking other people or bringing up irrelevances about how other editors behave, you might be able to return to editing. If you could return to editing within the framework of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, instead of fighting against them, you might be able to make valuable contributions, and balance some of the pro-Brahma Kumari bias which you quite rightly draw attention to. It is most unfortunate that instead to keep trying to defy Wikipedia policy, so that you remain blocked. I know I am probably wasting my time typing out this advice to you, as past experience suggests that you are likely to completely fail to take on board what is being said to you, but I am doing so in the hope that I may be wrong about that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)