10.0.0.x
10.0.0.x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet, I am not BStundent0 or any other editor. If Dennis Brown is going to block me, he should provide some evidence. It is completely unacceptable for him to attempt to stamp out any discussion he doesn't like by abusing his admin powers.
Decline reason:
I don't know if you're a sockpuppet, but the username violates the username policy. Bjelleklang - talk 14:23, 10 December 2012 (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.
Could you maybe help me out a little bit by showing me where to find the username policy and what to do now with this name?
- Hi again. The username policy is located here. If you would like to request a rename of the account, please see this template and follow the instructions there: {{unblock-un}} Bjelleklang - talk 14:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll read that more carefully before requesting again. 10.0.0.x (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
10.0.0.x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
I'm not necessarily sure the name is a policy violation—in fact, the block message admits only that it's a likely violation. The policy prohibits mock IP addresses, to be sure ... but this one is not likely to be confused with a valid IPv4 address. Indeed, it wouldn't work as one.
At the very least we should see about a username RFC on this one. We need consensus behind a decision to apply the policy this way. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Meanwhile this editor remains blocked. Could we agree to allow unblock for username change, which he appears to have accepted, and then deliberate the principle?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Depends if we believe the non-WP:SOCK claims ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Uh, does anybody have any evidence that I AM a sock? 10.0.0.x (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Let's see:
- Starts account as "10.0.0.x"
- First edit is to own talk page: "rm -rf you"
- Third edit is to AN/I discussion on MMA
- Choice of new username is "Innocuous Username"
- Conclusion: At worst, account quacks. At best, account is another pro-MMA SPA edit-warrior. In either case, there's not a lick of evidence that this person is here to improve the encyclopedia. Remember, we don't require due process, we require that we all do our best to improve and protect the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I've notified the blocking admin and asked him to take a look here. Bjelleklang - talk 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
None of that is evidence of me being somebody else, and your final point is a pretty wild accusation and also a pretty awful thing to say. 10.0.0.x (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Socking.
editThe block log explains this is a likely sock of BStudent0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on behavior, which was the reason for the block. The user name was an incidental remark, as indicated by the block log. Of course anyone is free to examine the contrib history and archives and use their own judgement, as I don't own the place and just volunteer here, but my belief that this person is a sockpuppet hasn't changed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not BStudent0 or a sock puppet of any other user, and I'd like to see you provide some actual evidence, not rationalizations for your knee jerk action. 10.0.0.x (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've explained that it was by comparing your behavior and contributions to prior sockpuppets, in particular BStudent0's. What I won't do is explain the details of how I drew that conclusion, as that is against protocol and not my job to educate sockpuppets, even those simply looking on. The check and balance here is that other admin are free to decide for themselves or request a different SPI clerk review. Or just completely dismiss my opinions wholesale if they find me untrustworthy. As with any block, any and all admin have the power to reverse it with a simple click of a button, if they so choose. I won't stand in the way of anyone else's actions, nor wheel war and I never take a difference of opinion by my fellow admin personally. Your tone, actions, familiarity and comments here have not persuaded me that my conclusions are wrong, and I still maintain the belief that you are indeed a sockpuppet. If anything, that belief is reinforced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. I created this account after lurking for a very long time to ask a question and immediately got blocked by Dennis Brown for being a sock puppet. I guess he wins, because even though he has no evidence, I'm still blocked, and even if I were to be unblocked this is absolutely not he kind of community I want to be involved in. 10.0.0.x (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
10.0.0.x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't want to be part of this community, but I do want to clear my name. Dennis Brown has provided no reason other than 'because I think so' for my block. Do I share any IPs or any other identifying information with any of these other accounts? No. I know I don't, because I know I'm not them. If he is going to claim that my tone, actions, familiarity and comments are enough, he should provide some specific examples. 10.0.0.x (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests do not exist to "clear one's name", they are to re-enable editing - after all, the block will always be in the block log. As this unblock us most distinctly not WP:GAB-compliant, and is stated to not be a request for the purpose of an unblock, then it's summarily declined. Further such requests will lead to a removal of your access to this page. As per WP:AAB, it's your responsibility to try and prove you're not a sock, especially when it's been done based on appearances (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 10 December 2012 (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 1 single comment was enough for Dennis Brown to identify me as a different person beyond any doubt, without any sort of IP check or anything like that? And that's reasonable to you? And now I have to somehow prove that I'm not some other random person? How would I even go about doing that? 10.0.0.x (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- If I thought you had the slightest inclination of helping to improve the encyclopedia, I could tell you what I think you'd have to do, but since I don't, I won't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Access removed and attacks rolled back
editAs your edits and unblocks are merely being used to atatck others, including the blocking admin, I have rolled back your most recent attacks and removed your ability to access this talkpage
