User talk:Kip1234

Welcome!

Hello, Kip1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ethnic group did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sino-Indian War, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sino-Indian War. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya, here is another independent source that verifies the Chinese military engaging in resumed forward patrols in Ladakh from April 30 1962 on p104: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_bjADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=chinese+army+patrols+ladakh+april+1962&source=bl&ots=bPra_eME2D&sig=ACfU3U2xT4FzI_tR1n3ozKt6mjMXjH7Y0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3p-GG3PDoAhVmTRUIHVejA9UQ6AEwCnoECA4QKQ#v=onepage&q=chinese%20army%20patrols%20ladakh%20april%201962&f=false. I would welcome an attempt from you to add your own sources for your edits, instead of you accusing me of original research without justification, when I would argue that it is you whom is responsible for this (due to your lack of sources). I do not wish to be combative, but I have multiple sources for both the Chinese army chasing the Dalai Lama in 1959 and then initiating increased military action in and along Indian-controlled territory in early 1962. Thanks, I hope that you will be reasonable and that we may achieve consensus before unsourced edits are changed.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Winstanley Estate has been accepted

Winstanley Estate, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What is the justification for suggesting that I am a sockpuppet of some random user that I have absolutely no connection to whatsoever? Also, what have I ever said that either confirms that I am him, or that I have used abusive language? There is literally no evidence in my sockpuppet investigation, nor has anyone pointed out any reason for there being suspicions. Really disappointed that I have been blocked for no reason, especially when I have made my own (what I hope is unrelated claim) against another user for repeated abusive language and personal attacks on me. When I made that claim, I asked for admin. abritration and gave that user a chance to respond, rather than being able to unilaterally impose an indefinite block with absolutely no factual basis. Kip1234 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical "CheckUser" evidence has indicated the abuse. This evidence is very rarely wrong, and you will need to either provide a convincing reason as to how you would share the same IP address and/or devices as another person, or own up to any alternative accounts and ask for forgiveness. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the County of Norfolk and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock I have admitted to some unrelated copyright violations but I am completely innocent of sock-puppetry and/or abusive language. Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: "I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"!

On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive right? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). Of course, Berean Hunter has said that he doesn't need to provide any evidence to impose a sock-puppetry/check-user ban (which so far he hasn't) and if reviewing administrators choose to agree, then there isn't much that can be done. From now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards,

Kip1234 Kip1234 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock I have admitted to some unrelated copyright violations but I am completely innocent of sock-puppetry and/or abusive language. Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"</q>!

On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive right? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). Of course, Berean Hunter has said that he doesn't need to provide any evidence to impose a sock-puppetry/check-user ban (which so far he hasn't) and if reviewing administrators choose to agree, then there isn't much that can be done. From now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards,
 [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 16:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock I have admitted to some unrelated copyright violations but I am completely innocent of sock-puppetry and/or abusive language. Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"</q>!

On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive right? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). Of course, Berean Hunter has said that he doesn't need to provide any evidence to impose a sock-puppetry/check-user ban (which so far he hasn't) and if reviewing administrators choose to agree, then there isn't much that can be done. From now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards,
 [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 16:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the [[County of Norfolk]] and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock I have admitted to some unrelated copyright violations but I am completely innocent of sock-puppetry and/or abusive language. Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">"I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"</q>!

On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive right? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). Of course, Berean Hunter has said that he doesn't need to provide any evidence to impose a sock-puppetry/check-user ban (which so far he hasn't) and if reviewing administrators choose to agree, then there isn't much that can be done. From now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards,
 [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] [[User:Kip1234|Kip1234]] ([[User talk:Kip1234#top|talk]]) 16:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, @Berean Hunter: and Captain Eek, thank you for your explanations as to my ban. Can you please explain the grounds that the checkuser tool was used to check for sock-puppetry in the first place, which I believe is part of the process? Can you also adhere to the IP information disclosure that my IP address is within the County of Norfolk and NR18 postcode and so is the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock I have admitted to some unrelated copyright violations but I am completely innocent of sock-puppetry and/or abusive language. Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: "I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"!

On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. Blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive right? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). Of course, Berean Hunter has said that he doesn't need to provide any evidence to impose a sock-puppetry/check-user ban (which so far he hasn't) and if reviewing administrators choose to agree, then there isn't much that can be done. From now on I will just create new pages (3 of which have already been accepted) and not enter into editing on other pages that might cause disputes or vandalism. As you know, these new pages will be reviewed for any content that violates wikipedia policies. Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Please give me the benefit of another chance. Regards,

Kip1234 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kip1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sockpuppetry: 1) My IP address has been publicly disclosed as being within the County of Norfolk and NR18 postcode. Can you please confirm as to how this matches the IP address of kykyred 2 (as the most basic form of IP information disclosure checking)? 2) I have never used abusive language or behaviour (I will happily provide evidence of this). Firstly, what is the evidence for my being a sock-puppet (and a subsequent ban) and secondly what grounds was the checkuser tool used under? Both of these procedures require evidence according to Wiki's own policy and none has been provided. This is designed to prevent 3) Similarly, Berean Hunter has not followed a single procedure of the sock-puppet investigation protocol that he himself has previously told other users to abide by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock Captain Eek even admitted that he didn't even know if there was check-user evidence or IP similarity evidence: "I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser"! 4) Finally, I am not, not, not a sock-puppet of this other user. Our editing histories have no similarities whatsoever and my account has been far more active and less contentious than theirs. Copyright: 5) I did commit some copyright violations but unless this is relevant to the ban is this not considered "fishing"? 6) On the copyright violations, I would like to apologise and state that this was early editing behaviour born of ignorance and I eventually corrected this behaviour and wasn't repeating it in my more recent uploads before my ban. 7) If blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive then why would I be punished for something that was retrospective anyway? I was not continuing this behaviour recently but have been completely honest in admitting to it when questioned (only denying the ridiculous sock-puppetry Kykyred 2 allegation). If unbanned, I would just create new pages and leave them for admins to review instead of editing potentially inflammatory pages. Kip1234 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this request has been insufficient to convince any patrolling admin to unblock. This is a procedural decline only, and you are welcome to appeal again, using a substantially reworded argument.

The avenues of contacting ARBCOM, and the Ombuds have been suggested as alternates.SQL ^{Query me!} 02:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

especially when I have made my own (what I hope is unrelated claim) against another user for repeated abusive language and personal attacks on me: I have absolutely no relation or connection, direct or indirect, with your ban. Alcaios (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcaios:

I didn't tag you, so I'm not sure how you got the notification to reply to me. Anyway, I definitely did not use abusive language against you or anyone else, so I'm a bit mystified as to why I have been indefinitely banned straight away. I was just trying to seek an explanation as to why such a strict punishment has been applied and what reasons there might be for it, but you're right that it's probably just a coincidence that the request for abritration that I submitted against you has been conveniently summarily dismissed, not on the evidence that I presented but because I was banned due to some unproven allegations that make no sense.

Kip1234 (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that you have been banned by looking at the Arbitration enforcement, then I went to your talk page to see what happened. The arbitration request has been closed because it had been filled by a banned account. I would guess that this is rather a different request of yours that has preceded the CheckUser analysis. Alcaios (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcaios:

Yes, it was an over-reach and "I shouldn't have said "extension of block/permanent ban", but again I did not use any abusive language and I'm amazed that you've been vindicated for calling me a neo-nazi and suffered absolutely no punishment, whereas I have had the most serious punishment for essentially bringing some comments (that someone had actually said) and then suggesting an (inappropriate) course of action. I am very confident that the IP claim will turn out not to be correct but shows how selective the definition of "abusive language/behaviour" can be according to certain editors.

Kip1234 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Arbitration request against me has been closed because you have been banned and you're the one that filled it. I was waiting for my "trial" and I have never tried to "escape". I think it's called a "formal defect" or "technical flaw" in penal procedures. Alcaios (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcaios:

There's actually a more apt legal metaphor that describes why my request has been closed against you (even though technically they should be two unrelated things and there is no reason why my ban affects the language and content of what you said). However, since neither of us are Wiki lawyers, I won't get into that and I hope that you now see how easy it would be to potentially end up with a very harsh punishment on here! In all seriousness, you do seem to have a lot more discretionary topic bans than I have ever had as well, but I am left once again to ponder the massive inconsistencies of these punishments.

There are literally no editing similarities between myself and the page that I am apparently a sock-puppet of, so yes I would guess that is one ill-advised sentence to @Berean Hunter: that 'dun me wrong, even though he has left @CaptainEek: to explain it to me, whereas he has just imposed the harshest punishment with no warning and not bothered to engage in any additional dialogue beyond that point.

Kip1234 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no topic ban. I have only displayed on my talk page that I am already aware of existing discretionary sanctions in various topics so that editors save time when they are about to give me such an alert. Alcaios (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alcaios:

My point was just that I didn't have any but a far harsher punishment has been applied to me more quickly with a far more opaque and inflexible process. By the way, if you hadn't have continued to call me a racialist in your apology and accuse other people of being "racialists" for agreeing with me, then I would have accepted your apology for the neo-nazi comparison. Anyway, that doesn't matter for now.

Kip1234 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you worked for an NGO before?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Hi Berean, is there a more private way to carry out this conversation? I am conscious that I have given away quite a lot of information as public disclosure and don't really feel comfortable giving away much more. Hopefully, we can move selective parts of that private conversation to a public domain.

Kip1234 (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can email me. See the pink box near the top of my talk page. This allows me to see what you would like to keep private. I may reply here with followup questions. I may be offline for some time as I've got several things to get finished today.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Hi Berean, apologies for spamming but just want to make sure that all policies are being abided by and so am letting you know that I have just sent you an email.

Apologies for the inconvenience, Kip1234 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied a little more than an hour later but haven't gotten a reply.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:

Apologies, as I sent it through wikipedia it didn't go to my primary inbox at first. I also didn't see the notification until just now. I've replied and thanks again.

Kip1234 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:

Replied. There is a sock-puppetry investigation process that should have been and still isn't being followed. Copyright violations on images are mistakes that I made in earlier work.

Kip1234 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please tell us in detail about your uploads labeled as "own work" from June 5 and preceding that date? Which ones are your own work and which ones aren't?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: You do realise that your indefinite ban was for supposedly being linked to an account (sock-puppetry) that had displayed abusive language or behaviour (without "asking")? I have no link to this account and it was a completely false allegation. The first appeal was denied on the basis of "IP similarities", yet there's been no evidence that I have any IP similarities with Kykyred 2.

The Mahad Mohammed Memorial is the only one that is not from the public domain and I have used in an article as my own work. The regeneration one is also not my own work but was in the public domain. As I explained, I thought that "own work" depended on how the image was used, but I will happily accept punishment for the copyright violations offence. It was in my first 10 pictures (which is why I referred to it as early work). I have since realised my mistake and been using pictures from flickr in line with image use policy, although I missed that picture.

Aren't copyright violations and sock-puppetry two completely separate things, particularly in this instance? The original allegation was sock-puppetry and that is the basis my request for abritration was closed and an indefinite ban was placed. Are you now admitting that I am not a sock-puppet of Kykyred 2 but committed (unrelated) copyright violations?

Kip1234 (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the only one that is not from the public domain"

Right. Please link to the ones that you claim are in the public domain. We need to get the claims sorted. You have stated things that weren't right so this needs to be addressed and you are not cooperating. Also, you should only have one unblock request open at a time and you are not to refactor what others have written.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: What have I stated that isn't right? How am I "not co-operating"? It's quite clear that you have violated all the protocols for sock puppetry investigations and you haven't answered a single question to provide actual evidence for any links with this user. Why don't you "get the claims sorted" by sharing @CaptainEek:'s "check-user evidence"? @CaptainEek: what was the check-user evidence? Why don't you "get the claims sorted" by following the sock-puppetry investigation protocol that you yourself have told another user to follow before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Shuppiluliuma_sock?

One rule for them but another for you.

Kip1234 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip1234, CheckUser evidence is private, and will stay that way. It includes IP addresses and other secret information that only a very small number of users are allowed to see, for obvious privacy and security reasons. I am not a CheckUser, and thus cannot see the evidence, this will be between you and BereanHunter, or another CheckUser. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: My IP address is in Norfolk, postcode NR18, under IP public information disclosure (as I said previously). Does the IP address match? @CaptainEek: What are you doing claiming that IP addresses are the same if you haven't even seen them? So, you'd allow anyone to be accused of sock-puppetry and you'd claim that they have the same IP address? Doesn't that mean that anyone could be a sock-puppet of anyone else and you'd claim that there was "check-user evidence? Why don't you remove your completely uncredible comment on my denial if that's true?

@Berean Hunter: has violated every single practice of sock-puppet investigations and has an extremely controversial history.

Kip1234 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Please remove your comment if you don't know that it's true or can't prove that there's any truth to what you say. Kip1234 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"What have I stated that isn't right?" There are several photos that aren't your work and though you have tried to deflect my questioning, you need to answer and state which. This is a straight line of questioning which has gotten nothing but you trying to deflect away from answering. Suddenly, when it comes to getting you to own up to having claimed other peoples' work as your own, it becomes accusations against me with all of your red herrings and faulty conclusions. Let me explain that I don't answer your questions and the threshold for a check is my discretion. I don't need to justify it to you and you don't run the questioning here.

"One rule for them but another for you." My advice to a non-checkuser about the evidence threshold that they should meet to convince a checkuser to run the checks is the norm and has been for years. Does not apply to checkusers though. Are you done trying to wikilawyer? The fact that you feel so confident about wikilawyering policies and trying to push your way around shows that you aren't a new account from just March. "not co-operating" I asked you which photos you were claiming were in the public domain and you didn't answer. Right now, I don't trust you and that is part of your problem. See WP:NOTTHEM. You certainly have all the hallmarks of a POV edit-warring sock. BTW, failure to come clean on a copyright violation is grounds for an indef block in its own right.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Change the indefinite ban to copyright violations then. Youre claiming that the evidence for your allegation is the fact that you're a check-user- great standards. Did you "push your way around" by not providing evidence or following any sock-puppetry investigation protocol (which also doesn't apply to you because you're a check-user). Why don't you stop deflecting the fundamental questions of what evidence there is that I am a sock-puppet of Kykyred 2 or why @CaptainEek: wants to claim that there is? Why don't you "sort out the claims" by dealing with the original allegation?

I looked at your history and quoted it back to you, it's not wikilawyering or proof of anything other than that specific point. However, blocks are meant to be preventative anyway and I had clearly stopped the copy-right violation behaviour but you don't abide by any wikipedia policies so why should that stop you now? (This is publicly accessible info. - I would have been able to read it if my account had been made in March or 2003). :) Kip1234 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the COPYVIO and NOTHERE blocks. If you ping CaptainEek or fail to address the photos again then I'll be pulling the plug on your talk page access.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:

Public domain:

There is the info. on the copyright violations, as well as my IP address and work history. Any chance of answering my questions on the sock-puppetry allegation or are you going to hide behind a check-user status again?

Kip1234 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Rights of use - All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in the content accessible (or available for download) on the Website, including text, pictures, graphics, video, audio material, software or any other form (Content) belong to Homesandproperty.co.uk or its licensors. All rights are hereby reserved."
2) "Rights of use - All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in the content accessible (or available for download) on the Website, including text, pictures, graphics, video, audio material, software or any other form (Content) belong to Standard.co.uk or its licensors. All rights are hereby reserved.
3) You have only linked to the same file on Commons again and haven't shown where you got it. Maybe that was just a copy error. Where did this come from again?
4) Four Square User submissions seem to be okay and that looks to be in the public domain. You still need to correct the attribution and give credit to the proper photographer though.

1 & 2 are not in the public domain according to their terms of use. Why do you think they are?

What about this and this? This appears to be copyrighted from here but you uploaded it anyway. This is copyvio. How is this screenshot from a 1972 movie in the public domain?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: I have admitted to mistakes on copyright violations. Why don't you stop deflecting questions on the sock-puppetry allegation?

Firstly, the Homes and Property Image has been used in numerous places that almost certainly wouldn't have copyright violations: https://www.thameschristianschool.org.uk/supernav/news

The steelpan image is on pinterest: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/533817362071890481/.

For the So-Solid picture, I also made a mistake, which I wouldn't repeat.

1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Early_Melodians_Steel_Orchestra_UK_Members.png = I deleted this one from the article and thought that would be enough. However, I am in contact with the founder of the Melodians Steel Orchestra UK and I'm sure that he would forgive any technical violation as he later gave me permission to use other pictures from the band in the article. (I can even cc you the email to prove contact and permission for other pictures).

2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winstanley_Estate_Sitting_Target_1972.png The movie is from a documentary on vimeo at around the 4:40 mark: https://vimeo.com/102127150.

3) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winstanley_Estate_Area_1938.png This picture that you are claiming that I copyrighted from English Heritage, can be found both on the movie/documentary at 1:10 and on this blog: https://simonhoggblogs.com/2014/03/18/why-was-the-winstanley-estate-built/.

4) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Marys_Church,_Battersea_Resized.jpg This is from a file that is already on wikimedia, although I actually changed it slightly by resizing it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Marys_Church,_Battersea_3.jpg.

As I said, I have co-operated with you fully and have admitted to past violations. The blocking policy clearly states that blocks should be preventative and not punative. By the way, this says that I am a "new user", so it kind of was my "early work": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2020_May_23_15:00. Relatively unimportant point but kind of proves that goes to my truthworthiness a little bit more.

@Berean Hunter: Hello Berean,

Since we have both had some time to cool off and you did not acknowledge receipt of my previous response to your copyright violation inquiry, I have sent an email with some thoughts on possible and incidental sock-puppetry similarities. I have been as honest as I can be (without giving you my real name- possibly you already have it) and I believe that however grudgingly there should be some trust that my general behaviour is not atypical of a sock-puppet or some other nefarious association. I admit to the copyright violations and if there should be an indefinite ban for that then so be it. However, the copyright violations had been corrected in my most recent uploads, which would seem to fit more into a punitive rather than preventative ban and this should mean that the sock-puppetry investigation should be moderated to some extent.

I hope that you will at least give me the courtesy of a response based on the copyright information that you requested from me earlier,

Kip1234 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where Kykyred2 lives, and, even if I did, I couldn't publicly comment on that. You can appeal to Arbcom if you feel a great injustice has been done to you. If that doesn't work, you can try m:Ombuds commission. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm asking you to confirm if his IP address matches the one that I have publicly disclosed, not where he lives. I was doing this to try and disprove the sockpuppetry allegation. Have you looked at my other points about there being a complete lack of evidence and not following protocol?

Kip1234 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]