User talk:GrahamWPhillips

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't want to appeal this to begin with because I like wikipedia a lot and wanted to accept simply that a genuine mistake had been made. However, seeing my name splashed everywhere as a 'sock master' is hard to take on a site I have used for years - always under my own name or clear identifier of myself. Earlier in the year, I was contacted by a friend of a friend, the user Bensimo, who told me he wanted to be an administrator on wikipedia and would set up a page on me. We spent a bit of time in the same place together, each logged into wikipedia. Of course I knew we were on the same IP, but didn't think anything of it, what we were doing was not sock puppeting, at worst it was meat puppeting as I understand now, though I never once directly told him what to write. Actually, the opposite. After reading up more on wikipedia guidelines, I then tried to discourage Bensimo from making further edits to my data - and even withdrew permission of a photo I'd sent him. So, yes, in retrospect I should have declared a connection to this user earlier. But it wasn't just me he was writing about, Bensimo's contributions were on dozens of topics. All these other users - apart from GWPhillipsRus I created for Russian wikipedia, I have no connection whatsoever with. Looking through their contributions, I can't deny there is a crossover with some of my own interests, but there are also lots of areas I either have no interest in or know nothing about. I think it's very unfair that my own, real name, is linked to all these accounts I have no connection with. I see that the admin who made the decision is very senior, and respected. So I must accept that he has interpreted something from the data available which is plausible. However, it's not correct. If I am unblocked, I pledge to continue using wikipedia only in good faith, and not on subjects I have any COI, or involvement, with. I will never again even get involved in meat puppetry.GrahamWPhillips (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC) **Also, I have a Facebook group on the case of Barry Pring, and have probably been a bit too active in asking members of that to get involved with edits on the Barry Pring case, in which I am involved. So I won't do that in future either. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/groups/558790610817814/

Decline reason:

(Checkuser comment) I have reviewed the technical and behavioural evidence relating to this appeal and the accusation that GrahamWPhillips has created and used a number of undeclared secondary accounts to edit his biography and other pages. Based on my review, I conclude that there is a significant amount of indisputable evidence to support this block. The appeal typed above is entirely dishonest, so I am dismissing it and would recommend the community spend no further time on this matter. AGK [•] 05:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

So you're saying that all these accounts editing articles on subjects clearly related to you from related IPs are a coincidence? --Rschen7754 05:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Rs. What I'm saying is that as a user a few years ago, I created a wikipedia page on someone who was really unhappy with being on wikipedia (Simon Price - at that time I was user GWP (true, that one did get blocked for an edit war over Cybill Shepherd - I've not always been a perfect wiki user, but I've always been good faith). So, when someone asked to create a page on me, having read something I'd written, I assisted, helped provide information and when it was out there felt quite nervous that untrue things would be posted about me. So, have I been over-keen in asking FB group members / friends to keep an eye on pages connected to me? Probably, yes. But then my page has been vandalised / attacked on more than one occasion. But creating a litany of secondary accounts myself to do so, no I absolutely did not do that. I'd like to bring to attention -

- If I'd wanted to 'sock', I wouldn't have also been using an account with my own name which could be clearly linked to. - If I'd thought what user Bensimo and I were doing was socking, I wouldn't have used the same IP address as him. - If I'd created all these other accounts to 'sock', I wouldn't have still used my own account.

Now I know you can look at these and say 'but maybe you did those just so you could say that'. Well, if you assume good faith then I will admit that by asking others to be involved in pages related to me, I've been guilty of 'meat puppetry'. However, I would really like to continue with the wikipedia project. This has been a lesson for me, and if allowed to continue I promise there will be no further issues with me relating to meat puppetry. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

{{I am appealing this as per the above response to Rs. I will overlook the negative above comments relating to my honesty.

I accept that by asking FB group members / friends to keep an eye on pages connected to me, I have perhaps been in breach of wikipedia policy or even a form of 'meat puppeting'. However, never sock puppeting. The wiki page on me will be gone in a couple of days - which is absolutely fine with me - and I'd like to continue to be involved in the community in good faith, under my own name.GrahamWPhillips (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)}}

All of these editors are using the exact same private IP address, identically-configured operating systems, the exact same Web browser - including the exact same configuration and plug-ins (excluding IP address, the odds of 2 personal computers being identical are about 1 in 378,000). Every single one uses the exact same grammar, parsing and phrasing. As the accused sockmaster, you are aware that you would be eligible for unblocking if there was a little bit of honesty forthcoming, right? The socks will be indefinite, but again, honesty and a WP:GAB-compliant unblock are key (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Involved admin comment (I raised the SPI): GWP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which the user states above was his previous account, was indefinitely blocked in 2008 and that block is still in effect, this should also be taken into consideration. January (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that BWilkins. As for there being a computer crossover between myself and Bensimo - I completely accept that - however we are not the same person. Unfortunately, what can I say, that user has said he doesn't want to get involved in this, so I am left to fight my own corner here. As for all the other editors involved, I would be extremely surprised if their data was the same (and that certainly wasn't reported in the SPI - only myself and Bensimo, which I have always admitted). However, nothing changes the fact that Bensimo and I are not the same person, nor am I the same person as any of the other accused editors.

At worst, I have been guilty of 'meat puppetry' by asking connections of mine to be involved in pages related to me. As for what January says above, that's true, he's got me bang to rights there, I was blocked in 2008 for 'edit warring' about Cybill Shepherd. I've not always been a perfect wikipedia user, but I'm innocent of this sock puppeting.GrahamWPhillips (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You created another account to evade a block, which is by definition sockpuppeting. --Rschen7754 10:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes Rs, I admit that - I got blocked back in 2008 for edit-warring over Cybill Shepherd. If I am going to be blocked now for that, then I'll accept it as some sort of karmic retribution. However, I am innocent of these latest sock puppeting charges, and it's very hard, and unfair, to see all these other accounts listed and stated as being mine when they are not. I don't want to say anything against wikipedia, a very important site, and I will never. But I will always be innocent of this. It seems my block won't be overturned. So what's the position - I should never edit wikipedia again?GrahamWPhillips (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If you do not come clean about the sock accounts and rebut the technical evidence that connects all of your accounts, that is a good way to ensure that you will never be unblocked. --Rschen7754 10:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Rs. However, I'm not going to admit guilt where there is none. Technical data has been mentioned here which would certainly have been included in the original SPI had it merited inclusion. With sock puppetry, as you are all aware, there is no conclusive way to prove it without an admission. Therefore everything is being weighted against me to attempt to induce an admission. An admission which will never come, because I am innocent. That said, I must believe that you do believe these charges, are all acting in good faith, and there is both no agenda against me, nor situation of senior wikipedians not wishing to overrule another senior wikipedian. I believe that because I believe in the purpose of wikipedia. I would never do anything against wikipedia. I can see the way the wind is blowing here, and it's against me. So, I will accept this block on the basis of my actions as GWP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and won't use wikipedia again as an editor. Best wishesGrahamWPhillips (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Graham: If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in the future, you may wish to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Standard offer, which sets out the typical terms under which a blocked or banned editor can legitimately return to the community. Regards, AGK [•] 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you AGK. However, I am unlikely to do that - I will always state my innocence because I am innocent, and that means I'll likely never be unblocked. This is a flawed process whereby these big claims of technical data have been made safe in the knowledge that wikipedia guidelines prevent actual data from being released. That means these big claims can be put out there and then used to attempt to extract an admission, the only conclusive way of proving a sock puppet. I choose to accept my block with equanimity, on the basis that I did create a new account some time after my other account, GWP, was blocked in 2008. I had viewed this as more of a new start than a sock puppet, but technically I now see I should have followed the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Further that I support the work of anti-sockpuppet admins, and the wikipedia project and community as a whole. Thus, I will never speak against the wikipedia project, and enjoy wikipedia as a reader rather than editor. I wish you all all the best with your continued involvement in wikipedia, and am logging out now for the final time. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need or care for an admission, because by its means and for its purposes, it already has positively identified sockpuppetry and sockpuppet accounts. To say that it's not possible to do so without an admission would be like saying no criminal suspect is guilty/can be considered guilty unless he confesses, which is manifestly incorrect. WilliamH (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that an unblock appeal would be successful if this editor maintains that the  Confirmed accounts are completely unrelated. --Rschen7754 05:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got logged in automatically here, but after this - as befits a blocked user - I'm logging out for good, so you guys can all do your 'ganging up' (apologies if that sounds pejorative) safe in my absence. Now, I know who WilliamH is off site, and I think he is a talented journalist and writer. I'd just like noted here that, a couple of hours after his last comment here, he changed [[1]] to directly support his above comment. Maybe that's ok, but it should be recorded nonetheless. I'm accepting my block as per the above, putting my wish to defend myself second to my support of the wikipedia project, won't log into this account again, nor create another. I'm sure some of you will probably get involved now and give my prostrate wiki-form a good going over, stopping short of cyber bullying as befits people of your intelligence, with other important work on wikipedia to do. Goodbye and best wishes. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed it because of what I said, citing what I said as the reason for changing it, and not to support my comment, which stands on its own merit. If you believe that I changed it in order to support what I said, then you haven't understood what I wrote, or are being disingenuous. Farewell. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ecstasy and Me

The article Ecstasy and Me has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability concern for alleged autobiography; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. This maybe merits a mention on Lamarr's page but definitely not a standalone article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of True Britt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article True Britt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Britt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

-- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)