User talk:Hillabear10

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillabear10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am really unsure why I was blocked. I noticed that there is a claim that I am a sock of porgers, which I am not, and while it is difficult for me to prove, a simple comparison of the edits from pogers with my edits will clearly show no behavioural evidence to support the linking of this account with that of porgers. Lastly, please explain why a checkuser name was even done in this case, as I understand policy to be that there has to be hard evidence that suggests blatant abuse. As stated above, one will find no such abuse. Please kindly correct this mistake.

-I have done some more research, the IP address linked to porgers account is not even my IP address. Futhermore, porgers IP address is located in a city hundreds of miles from where I live.

I would like to add some more evidence. It took DQ less than 4 minutes, to do 4 checkuser requests, to open an investigation, and then to close it (Started August 24 @ 3:47, finished August 24 @ 3:51. While that user may be an expert here on WIKI, is it humanly possible to do a full investigation and compare edit histories in that short of time? If not, then is the evidence based solely off of checkuser data, which has been said not to be accurate 100% of the time. If that later is the case, while statistics may suggest, given the amount of sheer volume of wiki, there will be times when Checkuser will give false positives. I ask a reviewing admin to please compare my edit history with that of porgers, as I did, and found no common ground. Aside from the above mentioned, you will also see, my use of deletion tags, which porgers never used.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts; without even referencing the SPI, I see multiple abusive accounts and no other editors matching this one. Doesn't matter if its Porgers or someone else, it's abusive and we don't need it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Would note for reviewing admins info, that he was connected quite clearly with a few other accounts through CU by the looks of the SPI case. And those accounts are the ones that have a very blatant common edit history with Pogers. Would also note 4 minutes is rather irrelevant as most of the checking could have been done before saving the page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillabear10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If I understand correctly, according to Jpgordon, the decision is based off of checkuser data which, policy states, is not always conclusive and should not be used as the sole means to determine a sock. Furthermore, as Jpgordon says, this account does not appear to link to porgers, but other account, which goes against the blocking admin DQ statement that there was "behaviour evidence that supported his block" in the blocking report. Furthermore, Djsasso, is in a conflict of interest, (as he deleted a prod that I placed on a page, and I questioned why), as AGK (another admin) had told him that a block should only apply if "this user creates another account" - aside from the one I'm using now, (please see conversation with AGK) which I never did. Lastly, as wiki policy states, checkuser should NEVER be used in a fishing type manner, as it is a matter of privacy. As stated above, DQ had no policy means to request a checkuser, and went against a policy which states that the checkuser can lose not only the checkuser tool but their admin status. As I am not porgers, and checkuser was used in a fishing manner, and there is no abusive edits from myself, and there is no behavioural proof linking me to porgers or the other accounts, and that an admin (AGK) said that a block should not apply, I ask that my account be restored.

Decline reason:

Pointless wikilawyering that makes no mention of the abusive edits. Seems to be a consensus here even without the Checkuser results. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BASC. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

And I would note that AGK never said he shouldn't be blocked. Just that if more were created then he should be blocked, at that point in time he didn't realize you had socked more than the two accounts. As for being involved, I didn't deny your unblock because it could remotely be seen as involved. That being said my being "involved" doesn't preclude me from pointing out important facts. Clearly DQ had some behaviour evidence to make a check or he wouldn't have made one. The behaviour evidence between you and Teedy34 is pretty obvious. Enough for a CU check. And then once all the accounts were linked its quite clear from the behaviour of those accounts that they are all one and the same. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one would take time to look at the interactions with Djsasso and AGK, it becomes clear that the only reason for DQ to assume that there is a link between porgers and myself, is for Djsasso to ask DQ (OFF OF WIKI) to do a checkuser. While Djasso, says that "behaviour evidence between you and Teddy34 is pretty obvious", how is teedy34 linked to porgers and the others? Teedy34 made one edit, on a page I edited. Do I know Teddy34? Yes, he works down the hall from me at work.Hillabear10 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I never requested anything. I only saw this because I saw your comment struck out in the deletion discussion and then came here to see if you had requested unblock. I actually don't think I have even ever seen DQ before let alone talk to him. If I was going to get you CU'd I would have done it the first day you came to my talk page spouting off uncivilly instead of being polite and asking why I had removed the prod. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that I was being uncivil, that was not my intention. As you are an admin, I asked you for clarification for the reasons why you deleted a prod. So I know in the future, what words did I use that you consider to be "spouting off uncivilly?"Hillabear10 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To DQ AKA DeltaQuad, please explain why you conducted a checkuser request as it appears to breach wiki policy;

On the English Wikipedia, CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary. The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run. Do not make any presumptions, no matter who asks. The CheckUser log is regularly examined by arbitrators and especially by members of the Audit Subcommittee, who have previously initiated investigations of their own motion. All actions associated with the CheckUser tool, especially public or off-wiki actions, are subject to public view and can result in a complaint being filed against you with the Audit Subcommittee, the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman, or both.

Please reply by 03:30 August 25 2012. Hillabear10 (talk) 18:46, 24

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillabear10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To DQ AKA DeltaQuad, please explain why you conducted a checkuser request as it appears to breach wiki policy; :::On the English Wikipedia, CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary. The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run. Do not make any presumptions, no matter who asks. The CheckUser log is regularly examined by arbitrators and especially by members of the Audit Subcommittee, who have previously initiated investigations of their own motion. All actions associated with the CheckUser tool, especially public or off-wiki actions, are subject to public view and can result in a complaint being filed against you with the Audit Subcommittee, the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman, or both. :::: Please reply by 03:30 August 25 2012.Hillabear10 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you've been given enough declined unblock templates for now. I have revoked your access to this talk page. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

August 2012 (UTC)

Tennisledes[edit]

Heya, this diff I couldn't agree more. Have replied. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]