![]() | This account has been confirmed by a
CheckUser as a
sockpuppet of
BGMNYC (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to this Checkuser request for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cheeser1 ( talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Not sure what this is about, I do have many housemates and we do share computers. Some of my posts may have been "controversial?" I don't believe I have violated any TOS, at least not intentionally, but sorry for any problems. DATBUS ( talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The blocking admin didn't say that you made controversial edits with this account. What he accused you of is a "Good hand, bad hand" sort of behavior, where you use one account (in this case, BGMNYC), to cause trouble, and "fight" it with your good account - see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts for details of what this means. The evidence of the two accounts being run by the same person isn't technical IP address information, but evidence that any user can see at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 13 March 2008 (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.
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
But that is not true. I would like to see the evidence of that. Was my account was closed based on this guys word? Can accounts be blocked like that without any panel who reviews evidence or confirms the accuracy of the evidence? I'm sure I've taken parts in discussions that were challenging, but that doesnt mean it was out of line or even unusual for wikipedia standards. I have certainly encountered remarkably more "passionate" editing from other editors who are not blocked. I don't udnerstand how a discussion that may be difficult or controversial is described as "causing trouble". I dont believe there is any evidence of me having a "good/bad" type of discussion with myself! I request again that you please unblock this account. If not, can you please show me where this evidence is and how it came to be used to prove "Good hand/bad hand" editing. Thanks for your time. DATBUS ( talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See Seicer's statement below. Checkuser has confirmed that this is a sockpuppet account. — Maxim (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (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.
Note: Checkuser confirms that these were all related to one primary account, and that the accounts were being used for disruptive purposes. seicer | talk | contribs 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With all due respect, the checkuser gives "no comment" with respect to IP addresses, and I cant see any record of "disruption" or "good hand/bad hand" editing, which are the the stated reasons I've been blocked. This does not seem to be done fairly. If you are going to block people's accounts shouldn't it be done fairly?
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Darling I am so sorry to hear that this has happened to you. As you know I encountered a similar confusing attack, but managed to get it worked out. I told you this can be a very dysfunctional environment, the rules appear to be misapplied sometimes by people like him, and 'buddies' who decide they don't like you for whatever reason. This notion of "assume Good faith" can be thrown about in the most hypocritical ways. No one has responded to your unban request after all this time, it appears that you did not get very fair shake. Your requests for objectivity seems to have fallen on deaf ears and editors appear to be treating you like a pariah regardless of the points you've raised, which which appear very concerning and worthy of investigation to me. I don't know about this Sockputtetry accusation, but nobody should be subjected to this type of stalking on Wikipedia regardless, this guy is clearly trying to get at you. I know your concerns, but its not just your imagination, you're not being paranoid. I read through this, you were treated badly here and somehow he got away with it. (Holocaust Denier???) "Sigh" well sorry I am not an administrator, so can only send you this kind of support right now. If I were you I would move on and not return to this account. Don't waste another word on this person, it's not worth the aggravation and I can see that it hurt you. Don't worry, there is support for you, miss your contributions dear! ShirleyPartridge ( talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This template puts pages into Category:Requests for unblock.
Abuse of this template may result in your talk page being
protected.
![]() | This account has been confirmed by a
CheckUser as a
sockpuppet of
BGMNYC (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs), and has been
blocked indefinitely. Please refer to this Checkuser request for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cheeser1 ( talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
|
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Not sure what this is about, I do have many housemates and we do share computers. Some of my posts may have been "controversial?" I don't believe I have violated any TOS, at least not intentionally, but sorry for any problems. DATBUS ( talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The blocking admin didn't say that you made controversial edits with this account. What he accused you of is a "Good hand, bad hand" sort of behavior, where you use one account (in this case, BGMNYC), to cause trouble, and "fight" it with your good account - see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts for details of what this means. The evidence of the two accounts being run by the same person isn't technical IP address information, but evidence that any user can see at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 13 March 2008 (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.
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
But that is not true. I would like to see the evidence of that. Was my account was closed based on this guys word? Can accounts be blocked like that without any panel who reviews evidence or confirms the accuracy of the evidence? I'm sure I've taken parts in discussions that were challenging, but that doesnt mean it was out of line or even unusual for wikipedia standards. I have certainly encountered remarkably more "passionate" editing from other editors who are not blocked. I don't udnerstand how a discussion that may be difficult or controversial is described as "causing trouble". I dont believe there is any evidence of me having a "good/bad" type of discussion with myself! I request again that you please unblock this account. If not, can you please show me where this evidence is and how it came to be used to prove "Good hand/bad hand" editing. Thanks for your time. DATBUS ( talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See Seicer's statement below. Checkuser has confirmed that this is a sockpuppet account. — Maxim (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (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.
Note: Checkuser confirms that these were all related to one primary account, and that the accounts were being used for disruptive purposes. seicer | talk | contribs 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
DATBUS ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
With all due respect, the checkuser gives "no comment" with respect to IP addresses, and I cant see any record of "disruption" or "good hand/bad hand" editing, which are the the stated reasons I've been blocked. This does not seem to be done fairly. If you are going to block people's accounts shouldn't it be done fairly?
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Darling I am so sorry to hear that this has happened to you. As you know I encountered a similar confusing attack, but managed to get it worked out. I told you this can be a very dysfunctional environment, the rules appear to be misapplied sometimes by people like him, and 'buddies' who decide they don't like you for whatever reason. This notion of "assume Good faith" can be thrown about in the most hypocritical ways. No one has responded to your unban request after all this time, it appears that you did not get very fair shake. Your requests for objectivity seems to have fallen on deaf ears and editors appear to be treating you like a pariah regardless of the points you've raised, which which appear very concerning and worthy of investigation to me. I don't know about this Sockputtetry accusation, but nobody should be subjected to this type of stalking on Wikipedia regardless, this guy is clearly trying to get at you. I know your concerns, but its not just your imagination, you're not being paranoid. I read through this, you were treated badly here and somehow he got away with it. (Holocaust Denier???) "Sigh" well sorry I am not an administrator, so can only send you this kind of support right now. If I were you I would move on and not return to this account. Don't waste another word on this person, it's not worth the aggravation and I can see that it hurt you. Don't worry, there is support for you, miss your contributions dear! ShirleyPartridge ( talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This template puts pages into Category:Requests for unblock.
Abuse of this template may result in your talk page being
protected.