Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiutwel/Archive

30 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Hello all. I admit to starting a new username, Xiutwel-2012.

I was banned from the American Wikipedia ('en') four years ago, after trying to cite information from the Official 9-11 Report into the 9-11 article. Admins who supported my edits were afraid to defend me against the mob of anti-truther editors.

The edit disputes which followed resulted in an ArbCom case being filed against me.

During all edit disputes I tried to avoid revert-warfare, and did my utmost best to remaine polite, civil and constructive, whilst the opposing editors kept citing new rules against me each time they lost an argument: "Reliable Sources, notability of the words in the reliable source", etc..

During the ArbCom case, I did not have time to defend myself, due to Real Life issiues. Nonetheless, The ArbCom did NOT find me guilty of misbehaviour.

They did send out a notice, however, that any admin can ban any editor for life for "being disruptive", without specifying what that means.

Subsequently, I was banned for life, not by the ArbCom, but by an individual admin after me doing exactly what others had done: warn editors not to misbehave relating 9-11 issues, using a template which was specifically designed for this warning.

I accept this ban as status quo. I do not endorse it, but I see that wikipedia cannot be helped relating to 9-11. It is just too sensitive for Americans. So I agree to refrain from editing these articles, and am sorry for the earlier Kaaskop sock, which resulted in my partial lifetime ban becoming a full lifetime ban.

I had appealed the original ban multiple times, but never received a reply or confirmation. Is this justice?

So I decided to use the "ignore all rules" and "right to vanish" conventions. I will contribute to wikipedia whereever I can, outside the realm of terrorist related pages. Please do not ban Xiutwel-2012, but if you do decide to, no hard feelings. Just pity.

Xiutwel-2012 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There are proper ways to have your account unblocked. Creating another account to avoid the block is not one of them. I've blocked the account -Xiutwel, please read WP:UNBLOCK to review our unblocking processes. TN X Man 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

04 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

JohnAndersonion praised a 9/11 conspiracy theorist for "having principles", after defending him out of the blue (only a few edits to one other topic), just as Xiutwel gave condolences on more than one occasion to POV-pushing 9/11 conspiracy theorists such as MichiganMilitia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am not this man or woman nor have I truly met the man I barnstarred except out of a minor happenstance. You will find there is no evidence tying me to this user.

I appreciate your time and effort in making Wikipedia a constructive ground for knowledge. --JohnAndersonian (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original is, but all of:
 * are ✅ to be each other. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing socks, tagging and closing.
 * are ✅ to be each other. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing socks, tagging and closing.
 * Indeffing socks, tagging and closing.