User talk:Sidozee


 * Actually, my refusal can be safely ignored by the next reviewing admin; I didn't realize that your previous account, User:Tezza1, was only banned for a year; there's no Wikipedia policy stopping you from using that account. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please abide by Wikipedia current policy below. I have displayed no disruptive behavior, and you guys can easily and quickly block if I do cross the line and vandalise articles. Wikipedia guidelines mention when blocking may not be used. -

Sanctions against editors should not be punitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive

Quote from those Wikipedia blocking guidelines....

" Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content."

My goodness, two edits on a talk page raising unethical past behavior of one user who was eventually banned indefinitely, and a block, can't you guys admit you DO get it wrong occasionally instead of instantly blocking? I've seen a few admin's years ago (around 2005 - great admins!!) apologize for errors, but doing so in 2015 would greatly help the project. I DO admit I have a prior account, but that account has NOT been used since a least 2006, that's 9 years, and I've forgotten the password! Wikipedia guidelines do allow for multiple accounts IF the account is not concurrently used and is not used for sockpuppet purposes, and that account has not been used for many years - was at least 9 years ago! Sidozee (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't block, by the way; I just declined unblock, but for an incorrect reason. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, keep me blocked Sidozee (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock offer
I am surprised at 's decision here - he's usually one of the good guys and generally never blocks without reason. That said, the block has several problems:
 * There is no notice explaining why this account is blocked. Even if the account holder knew perfectly well what it was, a reviewing administrator doesn't necessarily know the circumstances.
 * Sidozee has admitted to using multiple accounts, but also clarified they have not done so to deceive or evade a ban, which is acceptable per WP:SOCK. They can request the old count is indefinitely blocked and tagged as a duplicate per the doppelganger policy.

Therefore, I'd like to unblock this user. Sidozee, it would be helpful if you briefly tell me what sort of articles you'd like to edit on Wikipedia, as it would probably strengthen your cause. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin
Note the first few edits of this editor. It is obvious this is an experienced editor that had an ax to grind and created an account to grind with. The sum total of their off user page edits include:


 * Accusing someone of being a sock.
 * Same thing, accusing of socks, and drama inducing header choices.
 * Same as above.
 * Repeating the same to former Arb NewYorkBrad
 * Everything else is their own talk page since the block.

These are precisely the habits of someone using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or bypass a ban. While I normally put a more detailed explanation on a blocked user's talk page when they are blocked, in obvious cases of sockpuppetry, I don't bother. As for the cries of injustice, etc., that is a common tactic of socks, so I'm not moved.

Please note: a block notice is NOT required by policy and assuming I didn't have a reason to block isn't assuming good faith, particularly since there is a summary in the block log itself. Also note that the other account wouldn't be blocked as a doppelganger policy, it would simply be an abandoned account, blocking isn't even needed. This assumes you believe that to be the case, but I haven't seen evidence to substantiate it. As for "punitive" and "when blocks should not be used", nothing has been offered to substantiate these claims and they seem more in the vane of discrediting me with ad hominem so I see no need to address them.

If another admin familiar with sockpuppetry and/or work at SPI wants to review and overturn my block, no permission is required. At this point, however, I stand behind the block, although willing to listen to any actual evidence that it was in error. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't unblock without approval from Dennis, that is assured - I'm obviously missing something here. I'm afraid I'm not really a fan of our sockpuppetry policy, as long as you're not evading a block or vandalising / POV pushing on articles, I'm not really bothered about how many accounts you go through, to be honest. Sometimes I think SPI is just one big game of cat and mouse that isn't worth the trouble. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I invite someone experienced with SPI to look at the first contribs and decide. I'm glad to step aside and defer to their judgement. To me, this looks like a classic case of creating a second active account (or evading a ban) for the purpose of blaming others of socking, without you yourself being held up for scrutiny. This is a common thing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)