Please leave a . |
|
|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?. Thank you. Huon (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Babasalichai (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC) |
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please take a look at my edit history and see what I have contributed. This is patently unfair and I am being held responsible for what others have done. My edit history is solid, I have always disclosed my identify, and my edits have been within Wikipedia boundaries. I use talk pages for controversial items and have made basic changes, dates and references, to most issues in question. Additionally, I am hardly a sockpuppet. I am likely among the very few here on Wikipedia who uses a real name, real ID and openly shows who I am, where I am from and what I do. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 4:26 am, Today (UTC−7)
Accept reason:
At the time I reviewed and closed the SPI case, I was unaware of any wider discussion involving this company or this user. Given the much weaker technical and behavioral evidence connecting Judae1 (t c) to the more certain/likely sockpuppets, I can accept that Judae1 (t c) is editing separately in a manner that does not violate WP:SOCK. That being said, please be aware that any kind of conflict of interest is examined these days with a laser-like focus, so I encourage you to remain above-board in regards to any paid editing, or any editing of articles related to yourself or your company. —Darkwind (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. I am grateful for your support. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judae1. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC) |
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not have been editing on Wiki for a long time now. Please let me know why? I work in a shared office with hundreds of people Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2017 (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.
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been an editor for ten years and I do know what is permitted and what is not. This account is not a SockPuppet, it is that if Juda Engelmayer, www.judaengelmayer.com - nothing hidden. I have not caused damage, but agree to not cause any damage. I understand that you blocked me because I have edited certain pages that someone thinks are connected to me, or from websites. I do not do that, an I will continue not to do that. I believe I have made useful contributions, such as finding references for linda park of Enterprise fame. I urge you to reconsider, and please look at my history and see that my edits are within your wiki rules and in keeping with the good community Thank you I'd like to have a discussion on this. When I was accused in the past it was being part of a firm where a single party was accused of trying to edit a page a certain way and engaged in edit wars and challenges. It wasn't me then. Here I don't even see edit wars and battles and any harm i have caused. There are no controversies, and with minor and appropriate exception, I have not edited pages of clients. Where I did, I admit it and made correct edits. This is a surprise. − The page says that a user should not mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. I have not done any of this above, and I just went through some of the users you attribute allege are me too, and none of them seem to be in edit wars, trying to stir controversy, removing blocks or bans, not entering debates to create support and especially not to vandalize. All edits that I have been reading seem to be in keeping with updating Wikipedia with real information and useful data, properly referenced. This must be reviewed.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I do not find your answers plausible. In addition to the evidence already pointed out to you, you attempted to get an article for one of the socks past review here. You know this person and were working with them two years ago before your change of office. The checkuser confirmed both of your accounts in the same place much, much more recently. You haven't made an adequate accounting of relationships to these other editors. Declined.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (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.
Berean Hunter I would like to regain my editing ability and appeal to you for this. I ask what you want to know? I have no COI, have no connection and no relationship to the person or company. What I can't understand is why because of an interest, no matter how fervent, does that mean a COI? it doesn't, but for reasons unknown, it is decided I have one. I'm not looking to fight, I just want to know what I need to do to get back to editing that would satisfy you? Thank youJuda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I work in a shared office with hundreds of peopleas well as
...I was being part of a firm where a single party was accused of.... I do hear you, when you describe yourself, and the edits from this account match what you say. Based on how you represent yourself and my experience of you interacting you, i was dismayed to see this case - you don't ~seem~ to me to be the kind of person who would do this. I had all that in mind, when i wrote what I wrote. This is hard, as the CU results are what they are and the associated accounts are obvious throw-away accounts for paid editors.
I have not edited pages of clients. Where I did, I admit it and made correct edits.Where have you disclosed the clients, on behalf of whom you have edited? Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Judae1: You are blocked for sockpuppetry, and that is all we should be talking about here. In short: our WP:Checkuser tool found several accounts (listed here) that are editing from the same location as you do. You say you don't know them. But, those accounts were editing the same pages as you did, making similar edits to Jason Binn. For example: You and ChasTayn both !voted to keep the Jason Binn article. It is absolutely not possible that five people who do not know each other are editing the same page from the same location by coincidence. You have to explain us what's going on. Saying "I don't know them" will not help you because it's not possible. In your response, please explain us what's going on. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what language you speak, but you continue to out words in my mouth. I never said these work for for or with me. I know some and they don't work with me or for me. I will keep fighting this because you are wrong. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:Vanjagenije I just can't understand how you keep reading things I don't say. None of my staff is on Wikipedia and none edit or participate. None of the people you're referring to work with me or for me. Do you know what WeWork facility is? It's independent people. My company has nothing to do with anyone else other the collegial talk in the vestibule. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:Vanjagenije You have whatever answer you want to believe, and nothing I say mattera. So I ask you how do I resolve this to your satisfaction? I would like to work this out. Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This User_talk:Sundartripathi is an example of due process and how it should be done. The way mine was handled is wrong. I am disappointed in this system, where no one has to prove an COI, just make claims to it. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I know that there is a serious claim against me regarding the use of multiple accounts, and I know some of the users involved and do not know others. However, I do know that the charge against me was levied due to editing an article that I have no COI with at all; no money, no agreements, no involvements, no contact. I have an interest in the article's subject and I researched and studied it. It was no different than Jacob Ostreicher, a man I never met, but heard about his plight and went to a rally to see and hear more. Nor is it different from Kenneth Kraus, a man a read about, then reached out to for speak about his ordeal - for nothing other than subject matter interest. The only difference here is that the most recent subject has a media empire and is/was not an underdog as the other two are, so to speak. For some, that makes it a problem because of perception, but it is no different. I have no conflict other than interest, and having interest in a subject is what makes any Wikipedia editor worthwhile - interest enough to study, find valid sources, useful photos and more information. If you look at the page I was editing, there is wrongful information on it that I had tried to change, and it was reversed by an editor with little regard to Wikipedia fact checking. However, I do not want to debate it and I want to edit general pieces again. I will emphatically say that I will do my very best to avoid any topics that are of controversial nature, I will keep to myself and not engage in edit challenges, and I will not use multiple accounts. I would like objectivity here, some review of my eleven years as an editor, and some real valuation of my contributions to this terrific forum. Thank you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have been blocked for sock puppetry and this appeal, as with many of your comments above, fails to properly address this. Therefore I am declining your appeal. Blocked users have access to their talk pages solely for appealing their block and/or dealing with matters that are directly related to their block. Your discursive conversations have become unproductive and wander off into matters that are not pertinent to your block and, consequently, are unhelpful to the appeal process. I am therefore revoking your talk page access. If you wish to appeal again then you now must use WP:UTRS. My advice is to address, point by point, the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judae1/Archive and to describe, precisely, your relationship with each of the named users. Just Chilling (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2017 (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.
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19112 was submitted on Aug 30, 2017 16:17:26. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
This user made edits there-- (diff) 2016-12-28T20:46:04 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (28,497 bytes) (more refs and cleaned)
*(diff) 2016-12-28T20:22:07 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (27,645 bytes) (→Contemporary history (2012–present): fixed ref break) *(diff) 2016-12-28T20:18:51 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (27,643 bytes) (Added and moved MMOG to better place)
cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20067 was submitted on Dec 14, 2017 22:19:52. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20103 was submitted on Dec 18, 2017 15:25:47. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20154 was submitted on Dec 25, 2017 17:29:07. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20279 was submitted on Jan 09, 2018 15:23:00. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20614 was submitted on Feb 13, 2018 22:50:31. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have received your email - and the only advice left to give you would be to contact the arbitration committee. I would address the situation to them with complete honesty if you choose to email them. SQLQuery me! 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21825 was submitted on Jun 15, 2018 04:48:43. This review is now closed.