User talk:1d6507f9

1d6507f9, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi 1d6507f9! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have some issues with SFNs at the moment I might look in for advice on. Imogene @1d6507f9 08:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

September 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (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).

1d6507f9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a sock as confirmed by CU evidence. 1d6507f9 05:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:25, 18 September 2015 (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.

I shall consult with fellow ducklings. I'm sorry you don't assume good faith. I was using this account long before the September Morn drama, part of an effort by a group of editors to improve Wikipedia's coverage of European Union law. I was discouraged by my early reception and returned only recently to cover the Bosco Ntaganda trial. I edited at September Morn's Talk page because I am aware of the issue in connection with another matter and thought it worth intervening. There was no question of my registering a new account to intervene as your WP:DUCK essay (not a WP policy I notice) envisages.

You might care to reconsider. Did you mean to be quite so dismissive by the way? 1d6507f9 15:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly you did mean to be dismissive as you don't respond.I feel justified in making another unblock request. 1d6507f9 15:28, 19 September 2015 (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).

1d6507f9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

WP:DUCK does not apply as noted above. The reviewing administrator was plainly being dismissive and I feel justified in asking for another review. 1d6507f9 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your denials are tired and familiar. I'm assuming we will just see more of the same, so I'm nipping it in the bud. As always, you can appeal to WP:BASC. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 25 September 2015 (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.

Disappointed not to see a response here. Let's be clear about the issue. I am not a "sock". This is the only account I have ever edited Wikipedia on. An administrator, scarcely uninvolved given the crusade I am aware he has embarked upon against another editor, took exception to my intervening at the Talk page of "September Morn". He believes, on that basis only, that I am a sock. He demands (and gets) checkuser examination of my IP. This provides no evidence that I am a sock. The administrator nevertheless goes ahead and blocks me from editing. Requests by me to review this block were in the first place dismissed and are now secondly ignored.

The only inference one can reasonably draw is that the Wikipedia community is comfortable with administrators exercising this kind of arbitrary individual excess.

I am not happy to be treated this way. I want my editing privileges back, especially so I can continue to edit on the Bosco Ntaganda trial, and I want my edit at the Talk page of "September Morn" restored. 1d6507f9 13:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]