User talk:Mrs.EasterBunny

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).

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

---

Request reason:

see below, paragraph form can't be used in this template.

Decline reason:

At least one checkuser has evidence that you are Archtransit. If you must, e-mail arbcom-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org. Alternatively, stop wasting our time. ~ Riana ⁂ 17:24, 21 February 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.

I came here after a short wikibreak and find that I am suddenly blocked indefinitely. I am not sure why John Reaves has blocked me. I am not a sockpuppet of Archtransit, who is accused of having hundreds of socks.

I am not Archtransit and don't know his case but I can already see some flaws in the case. When you have a flaw in the case, it means that innocent people, like me, are being blocked (more like banned). One example of the inconsistency is that BEFORE this matter was being investigated, bureaucrat WJBscribe already notes difference in style[1]

Fair enough, I'm glad you unprotected the talkpage. Not the most eloquent unblock request I agree but I think the user is upset rather than trolling. WjBscribe 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) .

Compare with the stark difference in[2] where WJBscribe writes

"I was particularly amazed by calmness when he (Archtransit) was mistakenly blocked - his unblock request shows not the anger one would understand in the circumstances but is instead focused on concern that the block prevents him from finishing to sort out a late update to the DYK page. His ability to keep cool and relate well with other users should serve him well as an administrator."

This shows that even before the scrutiny, the writing style of the 2 people were entirely different, thus showing that they are different people and not socks.

I cannot defend Archtransit because I do not know the entire case, but I know that if you can prove that there are different people editing different articles, they cannot be socks! To this end, my edits speak for themselves - no other accused sock has edited in them. I can then also prove my identity. I am willing to mail a copy of my driver's license to Jimbo Wales. I call on others to do the same. We may find that some of these "socks" can't do it because they are socks but then at least the innocent users, like me, can show we are not socks. For example, if user A proves he is John Smith, user B proves she is Mary Jones, then at least one person should be unblocked because they clearly can't be a sock. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Easter Bunny contributes to the internet encyclopedia, Citizendium, not Wikipedia. He is required to prove his identity and must edit under his real name. He tells me that there, people are not accused of being socks. A model to copy? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to Archtransit by e-mail. I don't know if he will agree but if he reveals to me his identity and I reveal mine, then I should be in the clear. I hope he will do this. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NEW REQUEST If you support injustice, read this and do nothing. If you don't support blocking people falsely accused of sockpuppetry, please read the following and post it on ANI in your own words.

ACCUSED SOCKPUPPETS OF ARCHTRANSIT AND DEREKS1X If you have been accused of being a sockpuppet of this person, consider agreeing to reveal your identity to a trusted Wikipedian. If there are more than one of you who do this, then you can prove that you are innocent. If you have edited constructively and also prove your real name, you can at least vindicate me (and probably you). I've written to Archtransit at the e-mail address that he put on his user page (aeroarch@hotmail.com)

We really need participation. If it can be shown that 3 people edited constructively, at least 2 of them can't be socks. This would show at least a 67% error rate in sock detection. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
MEB was very active at FAC; the only questionable pass may have been Youngstown, Ohio, but I followed that one myself during review. Concerned about FAC connections on the alt account, and in the Youngstown FAC. And there's a Sandra up there now :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was very active at the FAC as noted by SandyGeorgia, but I did not comment on the FAC that Archtransit submitted. That is evidence of no sockpuppetry.

Admins block others for incivility. Don't be incivil yourself or even try to ignore this. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)