Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:27, 7 July 2009

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Frei Hans! I am Call me Bubba and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Call me Bubba (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Kowal

I have restored the former article to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal for your improvement.--Aervanath (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Within an hour or so of moving the material back to Theodore Kowal it was deleted again. Is it usual to restore content to a user page? It might have been better to restore it to the main page with an admin note to avoid such a speedy second deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite normal to move material that is not yet suitable for use as an encyclopaedia article to user space so that a user can improve it. See Misplaced Pages:Userfication for details. The article in its previous form was deleted after a week long discussion. It cannot simply be moved back into the main encyclopaedia until all the issues have been resolved. See the speedy deletion criteria for an explanation of why it was deleted again. Papa November (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok but I was not the user who created the article - I only questioned the article's deletion. Now the article has been deleted again, after I moved it from my user space back to Theodore Kowal where I thought more users would be able to access and improve it. If the person exists or existed, and if he did not create the article about himself, then in my opinion the article is valid. Also, why are you and Verbal hanging around every time I login? Frei Hans (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Once an article has been deleted, then recreation isn't permitted until the issues have been addressed. Any user (not just the original author) can request a copy of the deleted content and work on it in their own user space. After the improvements have been made, then it can be moved back into the main encyclopaedia. Admins are allowed to delete recreated articles on sight unless the improvements have already been made. Papa November (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Userfying pages

Hans Frei, I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Frei Hans (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A Bit of Advice

From some of the concerns of other users, and a quick review of some of your edits, I would like to give some advice ... otherwise, I expect an WP:RFC/U will be filed against you shortly by a number of editors.

• Assume good faith is the most important tenet of Misplaced Pages. Failure do AGF is considered disruptive
• An approved definition of vandalism has been accepted by the community. Only edits/actions that specifically meet the meanings provided in that definition can ever be called vandalism. You should note that content disputes do not fall in this category. Calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is considered disruptive.
• Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is a violation of the no public attacks policy. The general rule is to either put up or shut up
• Misplaced Pages has a clear dispute resolution process. Acting in a one-sided manner is not working collaboratively, which is contrary to the goals of this project.

If you believe that you have a failure to be able to work within these guidelines, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not for you...all of the above violations could result in blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello BWilkins. To address some of your bullet points:

• Yes indeed, assuming good faith is important. I wish more good faith had been assumed before your comment was posted on my user page.
• An approved definition of Misplaced Pages vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."

The users that I think you refer to, have been discussing an article from which large blocks of content were removed a number of times in various ways by users Verbal and Papa November. The article was page blanked. That is vandalism.

• Accusing someone of sock puppetry is not a violation of the no public attacks policy. A user was independently found in an arbitration case to be a sock puppet by other users. Please stop posting threatening messages on my user page just because I pointed out that the user who was found to be disruptively operating sock puppets also deleted an article that I contributed in good faith to Misplaced Pages.
• I agree, acting in a one sided manner is not working collaboratively. Please, in the interests of neutrality, point this out to the users who one-sidedly have been attempting to remove valid, well referenced and encyclopedic by constantly deleting content and nominating articles for deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ASIO File

Hi Frei Hans,

The article was redirected after the deletion debate. You can't revert it without overturning the consensus. Papa November (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Papa November. The article existed for quite some time before you began following me from page to page. It is factual, informative and written in a neutral style. You seem to have decided to redirect it in an attempt to edit war related to another article decision. The fact that you felt this particular article needed to be taken to some sort of "debate" or forum shows you know that your intent was controversial and biased and that you could not remove the article on your own with neutrality. In addition, the article was poorly redirected. In fact the article it was redirected to still linked back to the original article and contained quite different content. The article could not be deleted and so you tried to have it removed some other way. You seem to have begun following me from page to page, trying to remove content that I edit in good faith. You seem to be wiki-stalking me. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. Frei Hans (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The place to contest the AfD is WP:DRV, and not by reverting the redirect. I would note that you are in violation of policy in your actions, and that your comments to Papa November in bringing it to your attention are inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But the article was not even deleted. It could not be. Papa November tried to delete it but he failed to convince other administrators, so re-directed it to another article that contained different content instead. Other users wanted to keep the article. If I had known what he was doing I would have spoken in favour of the article as well. Call me an inclusionist if you will, I mean no ill.

This is not a case of a deletion review, it is a case of somebody who seems to have gained administrative tools through having been around for a while, and who is now using those tools to delete and remove valid and informative content through supposed "redirections" and other means, and to block other users. I do not like what he is doing. He seems to be following me around from page to page and targeting content that I edit for removal. Frei Hans (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who initially redirected ASIO File, so you can hardly blame him for that. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who initially tagged ASIO File for coatracking and other concerns, Papa November had nothing to do with it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Frei Hans,

It seems that Wikiquette alerts are not successfully resolving our differences. I have filed a request for comment on your conduct. Please could you comment at the Response section. Papa November (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. I am not interested in being drawn into your discussions, which seem designed to be disruptive and energy draining. I do not find you a pleasant editor to work with. Frei Hans (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The notification is not harassment, it is both required and polite. I strongly suggest that you comment there. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the same way the user Papa November behaved before. He disrupts articles, then tries to draw users away onto other "forum" pages. He invades user spaces with unfriendly advances. I do not like his style or his tone or the way he has worked to delete an article for no apparent reason other than that he does not personally like it. He posted a message that he titled "more sniping" on my user page last time. Hardly a welcoming or co-operative action. I don't like what he is up to, his choices for deletion show outright bias. Frei Hans (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Dougweller, you should take a look.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks to me like harassment. I think it's time you stepped back and considered that maybe there's something wrong iwht your behavior. There's no real reason to make accusations of sockpuppetry here. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is real cause. An article that Papa November and Verbal campaigned for the deletion of was deleted by an administrator (AMiB) found later in an arbitration case to have been engaging in disruptive sock puppetry. Frei Hans (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you adding me to the case if you think you have anything to explain to me? YOU're as much as admitting that the only reason you're having me investigated is that you don't like what I'm saying to you. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Further sock puppet investigation comment Skating close to a block for disruptive editing here

Frei Hans, I strongly recommend that you courteously engage the various users who have expressed a problem with your editing behaviors at the Request for comments page, and disengage elsewhere. Reverting clerks' edits at SPI and similar pages is generally considered a Bad Thing, and will get you blocked quickly if you don't modify your behavior, regardless of the accuracy of your positions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had not finished cleaning up the request before the clerk made a decision. For a start a bot had posted asking for a code letter. I have not posted one of these before, and wanted to fix it. The clerk made a decision very quickly, without allowing time for more information. Frei Hans (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Read some of Misplaced Pages's polices before you act again, mainly the ones listed above.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since all of this began I have read quite a lot of Misplaced Pages policy, and most of it seems centered around encouraging collaboration and good will in the creation of quality encyclopedic content - none of which I see in Papa November's or Verbal's recent behaviour. I am not impressed by editors who post threatening messages and subject titles on my user page. Consider the striken title of the heading above, written hypocritically in Papa November's style. Frei Hans (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The heading was to warn you that you were editing disruptively. "SPI Comment" doesn't get the point across.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not editing disruptively. Papa November, Verbal, AMiB and others who appear connected to them are. I would never tear into and delete citation from well referenced content. I like the principles Misplaced Pages was founded on. I am not interested in these "edit wars" that Verbal and others seem intent on. Frei Hans (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I regret to say that you are mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I warned you. On your own head be it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Request for comments. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And please stop adding users to your SPI report without evidence. Regardless of your intent, it merely looks like disruptive behavior. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, disruptive behaviour is creating a false account with a user name similar to the account name of another user for the purposes of disrupting content creation. That is what has happened now. I did not create an account to stalk myself with. I did not create the account named "Free Hans" My account name is spelt with an "i". The account created by the other user is spelt with two "e's". Frei Hans (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

New sock puppet evidence: false account masquerading as another user

A user who did not seem to like me pointing out their disruptive actions, and who did not like me asking them to stop, has created a false account named "Free Hans" which other users have mistaken as mine. The account "Free Hans" has a similar name but I did not create it. I would never create a false account to engage in these disruptive discussions, and am appalled that other users have. Frei Hans (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked - for something I never did

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

Request reason:

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.

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=Please remove the initial 24 hour block. I was accused unjustly of making "bad faith" accusations but actually tried to work in good faith other editors who seemed intent on what they called "edit warring". I accepted their presence and tried to negotiate with them. The editors did not return the courtesy. Instead I discovered that an editor involved in the deletion of the article we were discussing had been found by a separate arbitration group to be operating sock puppets disruptively. When I pointed this out I was urged by other users to "file" a sock puppet investigation. I did, in good faith. I feel my own good faith has been taken advantage of by other users acting disruptively. The user histories of users who have alleged I filed a bad faith sock puppet investigation indicate that those users have filed many accusations themselves. ] (]) 07:47, 7 July 2009 (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=Please remove the initial 24 hour block. I was accused unjustly of making "bad faith" accusations but actually tried to work in good faith other editors who seemed intent on what they called "edit warring". I accepted their presence and tried to negotiate with them. The editors did not return the courtesy. Instead I discovered that an editor involved in the deletion of the article we were discussing had been found by a separate arbitration group to be operating sock puppets disruptively. When I pointed this out I was urged by other users to "file" a sock puppet investigation. I did, in good faith. I feel my own good faith has been taken advantage of by other users acting disruptively. The user histories of users who have alleged I filed a bad faith sock puppet investigation indicate that those users have filed many accusations themselves. ] (]) 07:47, 7 July 2009 (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=Please remove the initial 24 hour block. I was accused unjustly of making "bad faith" accusations but actually tried to work in good faith other editors who seemed intent on what they called "edit warring". I accepted their presence and tried to negotiate with them. The editors did not return the courtesy. Instead I discovered that an editor involved in the deletion of the article we were discussing had been found by a separate arbitration group to be operating sock puppets disruptively. When I pointed this out I was urged by other users to "file" a sock puppet investigation. I did, in good faith. I feel my own good faith has been taken advantage of by other users acting disruptively. The user histories of users who have alleged I filed a bad faith sock puppet investigation indicate that those users have filed many accusations themselves. ] (]) 07:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please step back from your ongoing confrontation with every editor who seeks to inform, advise, or assist you. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collegial and collaborative editing environment, and that does not stop when you get into a content dispute with someone, or even when you feel that they are contributing in bad faith or attacking or harassing you. It is more important than ever, at such times, to be polite and not to make accusations or attacks against other editors. You might find some helpful information in my short essay here or in this particular section of policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating false sock puppets with names similar to the names of other users in order to discredit other users and disrupt Misplaced Pages is not "collegial". Other users have been stalking me across articles, campaigning for content deletion, showing bias and non-neutrality, and have been using sock puppets to do this. I have the right to say when somebody has been disrupting content, has stalked me across articles and has amoung other actions created a sock puppet with a name similar to mine to try and discredit content I have contributed. Frei Hans (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not familiar with the whole history (or, really, any of it) I did advise Frei Hans on WT:SPI to gather what evidence he thought he could and file an SPI case (as opposed to discussing his suspicions and requesting CU on the talkpage). Nathan 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the request for comments page.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your RFC/U

If you would like to make a response that would normally fall under Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Frei Hans#Response between now and when your block expires, you may leave one below this line, and I (or someone else) will make sure that it gets placed under that section in the RFC/U. Thank you, MuZemike 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

block reset

I have reset your block to 31 hours, owing to block evasion as User:Free Hans. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The user account User:Free Hans is not mine, I did not create it. I believe another user has created it to be disruptive. Please see request below. I tried to contact you from your user page but there was no email link, or address, on your user page. Frei Hans (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

False user account, with a name similar to mine, created by another user

The user account User:Free Hans was created by another user. I did not create that account. It appears to have been created to discredit my user account by using a similar name. This is very disruptive. The sock puppet was created by another user intent on disrupting Misplaced Pages content creation. Frei Hans (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The user account Free Hans does not belong to me. I believe it has been created to smear me. I am unable to state so on the user page of that account, or anywhere else, because of these blocks. I do not know why an administrator thinks the user account belongs to me. I was never even informed that it had been created. As for the original block. Other editors disruptively edited articles. I was advised to seek editorial assistance. I sought editorial assistance. Users suggested I file "reports" on other pages. Users attempted to provoke me, the same users following me and posting aggressive messages on my user page whenever I logged in. I began to suspect sock puppetry. I said so. I was advised to file a sock puppet report. I refrained, I did not want to become involved in these sorts of discussions, I was interested in genuine encyclopedic content creation. The behaviour from the same users continued. I was again advised to file a sock puppet report. I did so. The block was set and reset unreasonably, I believe to prevent me from providing more evidence in a sock puppet investigation. The administrator who reset the block said they did so "owing to evasion" and citing the account that I did not create. After the first block I simply logged out, dismayed at the lengths some users have gone to to prevent me from posting reasonable and well referenced content that they have taken a personal and biased dislike to. I did not create an alternative account. There was not even "an investigation" into the "Free Hans" account, to which I might have been able to reply or in which any misunderstanding might have been cleared up. I believe these blocks have been set without reason. I did not disrupt the content creation of other editors. Other editors have taken part in disruptive behaviour and what I have learned is known as "edit warring" here. Some editors seem to be trying to prevent me from representing myself as they attempt to smear my user name and destroy articles I have contributed to. They make a pretence of asking for more evidence, knowing full well I am not able to post it at the moment. I do not create alternative user accounts, as some other editors seem to, in order to take part in these disruptive discussions. Frei Hans (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

An almost identically named user springs up to revert and reopen a sockpuppet investigation that you started on everybody who has tried to help you, and we are supposed to believe it is someone else trying to smear your reputation? You are doing a good enough job of that yourself. Stephen 04:01, 7 July 2009 (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.

I did not create the account. Someone else is trying to make it look as though I did. Frei Hans (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note to the above, I'd be happy to help you with a method to respond to your RFC/U while you're blocked. Just create a separate section for it, and I'll take care of the rest. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

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.

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=An administrator blocked my account, stating that I had created a "sock puppet" named "Free Hans". I did not create the account. Another user tried to make it look as though I did. They chose a user name very like mine to discredit me. The false account was created after I pointed out that someone was using sock puppets as an administrator to delete content they did not like. I was advised several times to file a sock puppet investigation report, which I did. When I filed the investigation someone tried to discredit my account by creating yet another sock puppet. ] (]) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (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=An administrator blocked my account, stating that I had created a "sock puppet" named "Free Hans". I did not create the account. Another user tried to make it look as though I did. They chose a user name very like mine to discredit me. The false account was created after I pointed out that someone was using sock puppets as an administrator to delete content they did not like. I was advised several times to file a sock puppet investigation report, which I did. When I filed the investigation someone tried to discredit my account by creating yet another sock puppet. ] (]) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (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=An administrator blocked my account, stating that I had created a "sock puppet" named "Free Hans". I did not create the account. Another user tried to make it look as though I did. They chose a user name very like mine to discredit me. The false account was created after I pointed out that someone was using sock puppets as an administrator to delete content they did not like. I was advised several times to file a sock puppet investigation report, which I did. When I filed the investigation someone tried to discredit my account by creating yet another sock puppet. ] (]) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please grant this request (for a CU, not an unblock). If Frei Hans created the sock, it will be revealed that he's lying. If another user created it, everyone should be notified who did it and they should be blocked and Frei Hans' block shortened, but not withdrawn. He still deserves a block for his other mischievous behaviors. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What mischievous behaviours? Name them. I did nothing wrong. I tried to work in good faith with the mischievous edits of other users trying to delete an article, at first attempting to work with those users and negotiate. It later became apparent that some users were operating sock puppets to create disruptions. I pointed this out, and another sock puppet was created to discredit me. If you want to accuse me of mischievous behaviour then please name the actions specifically that you believe are mine. I have already discovered one user mimicking my user account with a similarly named one. Please provide more information in case there is another. Frei Hans (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But right now I'm wondering if he's getting the picture. Don't assume bad faith, etc. etc.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just the point. I did not assume bad faith when all this began. In fact I perhaps put up with too much disruptive editing from other editors who wanted to delete a new article. When I discovered that a user involved in the decision to delete the article had been found by a group of arbitrators to be operating sock puppets, and had engaged in biased action on other pages, I started to be "bolder" in following through on suggestions to file a separate sock puppet investigation. Now I have been accused of bad faith, for nothing more then pointing out the disruptive editing practices of other users. Frei Hans (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have modified my comment to avoid misunderstanding. A CU needs to be performed first. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a "CU"? Frei Hans (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the unblockes he doesn't yet.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I have reduced your block to approximately the original 24 hours and will raise a CU request. If it turns out that you did try to evade your block through a sockpuppet, expect an indefinite block. If the original Rfc is re-opened you may reply here if still blocked. I expect you to reply to the Rfc and not raise anymore SPIs or be disruptive until that is concluded Request handled by: Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm in Internet hell at the moment, and posted more or less the above, I thought, about an hour ago but I think my PC crashed - in any case it it still as slow as molasses. I see some more comments since I reduced the block, but I still think that making one last effort shows the good faith we are asking for from this editor (maybe especially because he ridiculously acccused me and others of being sockpuppets). I'll try to raise the CU after I eat. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser

I have requested CheckUser on the two accounts on your behalf. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Frei Hans. Thank you, MuZemike 07:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Could you also check the user who created the account Free Hans. I am still blocked and unable to add the account to the SPI I created. I did not create the account, but because it is similarly named other users seem to think it belongs to me. The account is spelt with two "e's" where as mine is spelt with an "i". Last time I looked the account was attached to a page alleging that the account was a sock puppet of mine. The account is not a sock puppet of mine and I do not like being accused of something that another user did. All of this is taking up more time then it should. These user disruptions and sock puppets seem to be distracting from more productive practices. I have seen similar behaviour on other parts of the web (imposters imitating other users and trying to draw them into confrontation for example) but thought Misplaced Pages had a better reputation than that. I am surprised and disappointed to see those sorts of disruptions here. Revision: I see that you requested to check the account "Free Hans", which is not mine. I thought you meant you were checking Papa November's and Verbal's accounts. Could you please request a check for those as well. Frei Hans (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because I agree with all the others that that SPI is completely unfounded, unbased, and not really in good faith. MuZemike 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not in good faith to sit back and accept that somebody has been disruptively editing content, and has created a sock puppet with a name similar to mine to try and smear my contributions. Some users seem to think that they can roam around bullying others by creating numerous accounts, and get away with it by accusing others who point out the truth of "bad faith". I have even been advised to "put up" and "shut up". I do not think that good Wikipedians should sit back and allow others to do this. I am happy for people to check my account against "Free Hans" because I know that I did not create it. Why are other users so resistant to having their accounts checked? Frei Hans (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Also, The user page history of the user account "Free Hans" appears to show only one edit - by user Peter Symonds. The edit notation simply states "sock". If that is the only edit in the user page history then it appears the page was created by user Peter Symonds. Surely when a user page is created the first edit should show the name of the user page editor? Yet the user page history of "Free Hans" does not show any log of it being created by anyone named "Free Hans". Perhaps it might pay to add user Peter Symonds to the check of "Free Hans". Would you do that? Frei Hans (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock