Hyperbaric oxygen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request a review. The only reason given is "Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole". The only reason on that page is that another editor regards my edits as "trolling". I strenuously deny that, but am not allowed to reply on that page. My suggestions were entirely constructive. If other editors disagree, they can say so. I can hardly believe that the editor who complained about me even read those comments. Is this the normal way to treat an editor who goes to the WikiProject pages to start a sensible discussion? What was I expected to do? Hyperbaric oxygen ( talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock request does not address the reason for the block. Even if all the edits of a sockpuppet account are constructive, it is still a sockpuppet of a blocked user - in this case, a community banned user - and is in violation of policy regardless of anything else. In order to be unblocked a clear explanation of how this account is not Echigo mole ( talk · contribs) needs to be provided (and based on my looking things over, I agree that this fits with behavioral evidence that it is). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 15 May 2013 (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.
I agree that this account must be blocked if it is really a sockpuppet of Echigo mole or of any other account. But: 1/ Mathsci accusations do not contain any argument on the evidence of this supposed sockpuppetry. 2/ Checkusers do not confirm this supposed sockpuppetry. 3/ Contrarily to Mathsci assertions, all edits by Hyperbaric oxygen are constructive; the posts to some user talk pages (mentioned by mathsci) by the UK IP are normal messages for a new editor that is reverted and blocked for reasons that are obscure for him, if he really a new editor (how many new editors know about sockpuppetry?). D.Lazard ( talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hyperbaric oxygen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sorry to have to make a further request, it seems that my previous request was not clear enough. I request to be unblocked on the grounds that I was blocked for being someone else, when I believe that it is reasonably clear that I am in fact not that person. It is hard to prove a negative, epecially since I was only able to make a handful of edits before being reported, but from what I can see, the Echigo Mole vandal is described as being mathematically incompetetent, clueless, only trolling and so forth. The few edits I was able to make have not been described that way by members of the Mathematics Project, and indeed at least one other editor has come here to support my edits as sensible and constructive. (I agree that one particular editor has, rather vociferously, argued that my edits are all trolling, but I submit that he is in a minority.) If Echigo Mole is a clueless troll, and the consensus is that my edits are neither clueless nor trolling, then that seems to be the best evidence I can offer that I am not them (indeed, I find it hard to see what sort of evidence I could possibly submit in this situation apart from the opinions of other mathematics editor). So, please, consider unblocking me and allow me o continue to edit constructively.
Decline reason:
Echigo, will you never go away and do something constructive elsewhere?-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:45, 19 May 2013 (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.
Hyperbaric oxygen ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hyperbaric oxygen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I request a review. The only reason given is "Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole". The only reason on that page is that another editor regards my edits as "trolling". I strenuously deny that, but am not allowed to reply on that page. My suggestions were entirely constructive. If other editors disagree, they can say so. I can hardly believe that the editor who complained about me even read those comments. Is this the normal way to treat an editor who goes to the WikiProject pages to start a sensible discussion? What was I expected to do? Hyperbaric oxygen ( talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock request does not address the reason for the block. Even if all the edits of a sockpuppet account are constructive, it is still a sockpuppet of a blocked user - in this case, a community banned user - and is in violation of policy regardless of anything else. In order to be unblocked a clear explanation of how this account is not Echigo mole ( talk · contribs) needs to be provided (and based on my looking things over, I agree that this fits with behavioral evidence that it is). - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 15 May 2013 (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.
I agree that this account must be blocked if it is really a sockpuppet of Echigo mole or of any other account. But: 1/ Mathsci accusations do not contain any argument on the evidence of this supposed sockpuppetry. 2/ Checkusers do not confirm this supposed sockpuppetry. 3/ Contrarily to Mathsci assertions, all edits by Hyperbaric oxygen are constructive; the posts to some user talk pages (mentioned by mathsci) by the UK IP are normal messages for a new editor that is reverted and blocked for reasons that are obscure for him, if he really a new editor (how many new editors know about sockpuppetry?). D.Lazard ( talk) 08:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hyperbaric oxygen ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am sorry to have to make a further request, it seems that my previous request was not clear enough. I request to be unblocked on the grounds that I was blocked for being someone else, when I believe that it is reasonably clear that I am in fact not that person. It is hard to prove a negative, epecially since I was only able to make a handful of edits before being reported, but from what I can see, the Echigo Mole vandal is described as being mathematically incompetetent, clueless, only trolling and so forth. The few edits I was able to make have not been described that way by members of the Mathematics Project, and indeed at least one other editor has come here to support my edits as sensible and constructive. (I agree that one particular editor has, rather vociferously, argued that my edits are all trolling, but I submit that he is in a minority.) If Echigo Mole is a clueless troll, and the consensus is that my edits are neither clueless nor trolling, then that seems to be the best evidence I can offer that I am not them (indeed, I find it hard to see what sort of evidence I could possibly submit in this situation apart from the opinions of other mathematics editor). So, please, consider unblocking me and allow me o continue to edit constructively.
Decline reason:
Echigo, will you never go away and do something constructive elsewhere?-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 20:45, 19 May 2013 (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.
Hyperbaric oxygen ( talk) 21:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)