ChristensenMA
March 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. BencherliteTalk 18:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)I'm willing to extend a degree of good faith, of course, but when it's blatantly obvious that you created this account to mimic the name of ChristensenMJ, who's been editing here for over 7 years, on articles within the area that ChristensenMJ edits, there's no room for good faith. Add to that a pattern of disruption that sees multiple users complain about you, with justification, and I think Wikipedia is better off without you being allowed to edit. BencherliteTalk 18:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
ChristensenMA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry that what I've said and done look like rule breakage, and I'll do my best not to do or say thing in ways that look like that in the future. But as for the user name, I've been editing here for over those 7 years too--11, in fact--and that area is one that I edit too. (I wouldn't be surprised if we live in the same state and are from the same church.) So if not only those points, but m.j. christensen can use parts of his real name, and obviously some of my views are different from his, so my edits shouldn't be get confused as if I were him (and there is an A in mine instead of a J), and my real name is indeed M.A. Christensen, then why shouldn't I be allowed to use my last name and first and middle initials in that same way? (Remember all those variables that I listed as part of the "if" in the backgrounding of my question. ChristensenMA (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:50, 23 March 2016 (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.
ChristensenMA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(I already applied the pointers from the unblock guide in my first request.)
@Jpgordon: Have you forgotten the rules from the SPI RULES PAGE ITSELF that say use of multiple accounts is NOT SOCKING unless there is abuse? And why do you figure that your answer is even valid if that's not even the reason I was blocked anyway?
1. How do you figure that writing one edition as "ChristensenMC" and then realizing that you created that account in error and meant "ChristensenMA" when you created it, so then creating that and then using it instead, is "abuse"?
2. How do you figure that then writing another edition as just an IP user and then getting back on as the user to state that the IP you were writing with is, in fact, you (an intent to be transparent and up-front, which the SPI RULES say doing so should help keep you out of trouble) is "abuse"?
3. How do you figure that writing an edition under one or both conditions of the above 1 or 2, which then becomes disputed as "not correct," and even falsely disputed as "disruptive" and even "vandalism" even though it's not, should be considered "abuse" even though it obviously can't have been an intent to deceive someone that those are from a supposed "consensus" of more than one person (which is why the rules about sock-puppeting exist in the first place)?
Decline reason:
We do not unblock sockpuppets and we do not unblock accounts that are created to impersonate other users. If you want to be unblocked, you should ask so from your original account, which is User:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Vanjagenije (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (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.
- For any reviewing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/75.162.211.81. BencherliteTalk 18:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Don't forget to read the reminder explanation of the SPI RULES and his own defenses there as well, so as not to jump to false conclusions about this user.
- 75.162.206.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 174.23.190.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) both blocked for evading this block at WP:SPI. BencherliteTalk 18:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- How is a user supposed to defend himself from false claims at the SPI if you guys unjustly block him before he even has a chance to? ChristensenMA (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you remove my comments here one more time, your ability to edit this page will be removed. BencherliteTalk 18:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- How have I supposedly "removed [your] comments here"? ChristensenMA (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like this: [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- How have I supposedly "removed [your] comments here"? ChristensenMA (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)