Windhover75
Welcome!
edit
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 | Blocked as a sockpuppet You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Dalejenkins (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. |
NW (Talk) 01:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Windhover75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well, it's nice to see that our checkusers are up to speed. The clearly clueless User:Hersfold has blocked this account as "Likely" to be User:Dalejenkins on the basis that it's two accounts on the most popular ISP in the UK!! On that basis (and I doubt if there's any other technical evidence, because I'm not Dalejenkins) ... you don't actually have any evidence, do you? I see that in the ANI discussion the behavioural aspects of the account were seen to be associated with User:Verbal instead! So in other words, this account acts like User:Verbal (but isn't - CU says so), but has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins (because it's on the same ISP as him, but doesn't act like him!). Would someone with a clue therefore like to explain why exactly this account has been blocked? Take your time, I'm taking notes.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but attacking other editors will not get your account unblocked. A new request that focuses on your actions and/or solely on the CU evidence will be looked on much more favorably. TNXMan 17:10, 16 December 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.
- You are obviously not a new user. None of your edits were to actual articles. Your first edit was on ANI and to say, "Well let's face it that's your speciality" to another editor, i.e. an expression of familarity with that editor. Your next three edits were to comment in opposition to that same editor in three AfDs with your subsequent AfD effort being to attack a group of editors as "the ARS vote block," which again suggests existing familiarity with that group. Even without the checkuser results, it is clear you have been on Wikipedia befor and even without the sockpuppetry, the edits are still antagonistic and thus unhelpful. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Windhover75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No-one has yet explained how this is a valid block. Apart from the comment about another user - which was snarky but not blockable - the account has not been disruptive, and I think I need to re-iterate again that this account has been blocked for being on the same ISP as a serial vandal - the UK's busiest ISP. That's like blocking someone for being on AOL in the US, because a vandal once used an AOL connection. The user who was accused of actually being this account is actually, it seems, in a different continent. So I'll say again - why is this account blocked? For being familiar with Wikipedia? Answer the question, please.
Decline reason:
You were blocked because of evidence that you're involved in stacking votes at AfDs. I have little reason to doubt the word of a trusted checkuser. Blueboy96 22:50, 16 December 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.
Windhover75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
If I were going to stack votes at AfD, that would mean someone else also voting the same way on that AfD. Could you inform me who those people were? (because as far as I can see, hardly anyone voted the same way as me on more than one of them). And I'll say it again for the hard of reading - the checkuser evidence was "likely" on an account which WASN'T the one the checkuser was performed on - however, it only came out "likely" because this account uses an IP which is the biggest in the UK and the behavioural evidence does NOT match that account. On that basis you'd have to block every new account which happens to use BT! Now is anyone actually going to give me a sensible answer here, because that's three (if not four) people that haven't actually read the unblock requests properly yet. Why is this account blocked?
Decline reason:
You have already had your unblock reviewed. I am now reviewing it again to come to the same conclusions as Blueboy96. It is abundantly clear from both your actions and the check user's findings that you are the same person as the other sock puppets I blocked. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:38, 17 December 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.
Windhover75 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Another non-answer, as I am not the same person you blocked before (as you will find out). Making a vague wave at CU findings (which you almost certainly haven't seen) isn't a substitute for actually doing a bit of work and finding out that all those admins above you might have been wrong. So another fail there, although not as epic as Blueboy96 who appears not to know what votestacking is. Anyone else want to have a go? I'll be writing the results up in a WP:NEWT style at a later date, if you would like your name in lights
Decline reason:
The threatening nature of that request makes it clear that no matter the accuracy of the sock findings, you have edited under another name, and unblocking this account would be a bad idea. I will be protecting this talk page for a while as well in order to stop you wasting any more time. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:49, 17 December 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.