User talk:PeterRobertson7

July 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Andrea Leadsom, you may be blocked from editing. Tataral (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm alone in considering the hit pieces by the Times Tabloid journalism of a kind expressly forbidden in a BLP, stop bullying, Tataral, try a little discussion first.

I find I've been banned without further notice or warning. PeterRobertson7 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Clarity or mediation sought.PeterRobertson7 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Tom29739#Block_Notice where you are mentioned. Unless one of the WP:Checkusers is prepared to give you more information then that's as much information as anyone on Wikipedia has. Nthep (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nthep, can't find any reference to my account, not have grounds for an indefinite ban be clarified, nor warnings, other than what I still regard as an inappropriate one above on grounds of a BLP complaint that has since been upheld by other editors, been issued. How can I ask for clarity if I can't edit talk pages/discussion pages? Where is the place for an appeal? PeterRobertson7 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Found it now, where did Mike V get evidence, I'm linked to 2 other accounts mentioned - v bizarre! How can I appeal? PeterRobertson7 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2016 (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).

PeterRobertson7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not aware of or in any way linked to editors in Mike V's post."Tom29739, PeterRobertson7, Callumlol99, Banyer" Mike V. I have not previously req'd unblock.

Decline reason:

A checkuser has blocked you due to technical evidence showing you are related to the account above. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:44, 19 July 2016 (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.

Where can I see this "evidence"? I contest the charge.

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).

PeterRobertson7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no connection of any kind to the accounts listed.

Decline reason:

We cannot unblock because there is technical evidence that you are engaging in sockpuppetry. We cannot disclose that evidence publicly. You can appeal this to the Arbitration Committee, but further unblock requests will get you the same answer. Katie^talk 15:55, 19 July 2016 (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.

Thank you, Katie. The lack of transparency is problematic. I have no connection whatsoever with those 3 accounts, why is it difficult to publish this? What about citing just one example? It is my request. If there is "evidence" it is unconnected to me or to my editing. Combined with the lack of clear description, the lack of warning here, except one that has subsequently been disqualified by the other page editors, I am left with a very unsatisfactory experience, and an impression of being "stitched up". As to sock puppetry, I disclaim this charge, based on wiki's own page [1] on the subject. Unhappily yours, Peter Robertson. PeterRobertson7 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbcom,

I would like to appeal a block based on the linked use of my account to 3 other accts, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ATom29739 .

I understand there is technical evidence to support this, but it has not been disclosed.

"these accounts were a confirmed match to Tom29739: PeterRobertson7, Callumlol99, Banyer."

I have never used, edited with or against any of these usernames, nor I am aware that any of them have been on same page.

I am also concerned that the blocking was done without warning, other than a disagreement about a page edit, later upheld by other editors.

Thank you,

Peter R PeterRobertson7 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom won't see a message like this. Please email your request to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org that will bring it to the attention of all arbcom members. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]