Thanks Chaser, I know there was someone from at least one of the articles I edited who allegedly were using sockpuppets. I have a feeling some over zealous admin included me as one of these. I say allegedly because after this I can no longer consider that accusation to be a reliable one. - Biophase 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm really getting impatient now at rogue admins who block users without stating a reason and then run away. Wikipedia is crap. - Biophase 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Biophase ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account is alleged by User:Mackensen to be a sockpuppet of User:PromX1. This is a legitimate account for legitimate reasons as can be seen from my editing history. If you examine my contribution you will see that I have made contructive edits. I don't care what this admin's problem is with the user as long as he does not involve me in it. This admin claims a checkuser but there is no reference to the request or to it being done. The logs indicate that this PromX1 user was blocked 23:20, 29 May 2007 and I was blocked 23:52, 29 May 2007, only 32 minutes thereafter. There also does not seem to be any sockpuppet list that I and this PromX1 are on.
This admin is not following policy and is actively trying to bury this issue. I wish to have this account unblocked. It is a legitimate user account created for legitimate editing purposes as anyone who checks my edits can see. I will also settle for a puplic apology from this "admin" at this stage.
Decline reason:
Mackensen is indeed a checkuser - he may act as such independent any request to do so on his own authority. If you wish to dispute this block I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee as he advised in the block summary - they can be emailed at <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> — WjB scribe 01:42, 9 July 2007 (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.
WJBscribe: He does not have the authority to review a block in a dispute he is involved in. Mackensen has done the following:
Mackensen is actively trying to silence his conduct in this matter. He is not fit to have admin priveleges if this issue comes to arbcom. - Biophase 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Chaser, I know there was someone from at least one of the articles I edited who allegedly were using sockpuppets. I have a feeling some over zealous admin included me as one of these. I say allegedly because after this I can no longer consider that accusation to be a reliable one. - Biophase 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm really getting impatient now at rogue admins who block users without stating a reason and then run away. Wikipedia is crap. - Biophase 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Biophase ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This account is alleged by User:Mackensen to be a sockpuppet of User:PromX1. This is a legitimate account for legitimate reasons as can be seen from my editing history. If you examine my contribution you will see that I have made contructive edits. I don't care what this admin's problem is with the user as long as he does not involve me in it. This admin claims a checkuser but there is no reference to the request or to it being done. The logs indicate that this PromX1 user was blocked 23:20, 29 May 2007 and I was blocked 23:52, 29 May 2007, only 32 minutes thereafter. There also does not seem to be any sockpuppet list that I and this PromX1 are on.
This admin is not following policy and is actively trying to bury this issue. I wish to have this account unblocked. It is a legitimate user account created for legitimate editing purposes as anyone who checks my edits can see. I will also settle for a puplic apology from this "admin" at this stage.
Decline reason:
Mackensen is indeed a checkuser - he may act as such independent any request to do so on his own authority. If you wish to dispute this block I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee as he advised in the block summary - they can be emailed at <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> — WjB scribe 01:42, 9 July 2007 (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.
WJBscribe: He does not have the authority to review a block in a dispute he is involved in. Mackensen has done the following:
Mackensen is actively trying to silence his conduct in this matter. He is not fit to have admin priveleges if this issue comes to arbcom. - Biophase 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)