User talk:Renamed user 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:25, 29 March 2008

you

have foolishly admitted to using a sockpuppet to win your argument on a controversal topic that you were edit warring over on the past, this is against WP:SOCK and the use of multiple accounts to gain the upper hand is banned here on wikipedia, you possibly will be blocked for this. 86.147.70.148 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 have foolishly admitted to using a sockpuppet to win your argument on a controversal topic that you were edit warring over on the past, this is against [[WP:SOCK]] and the use of multiple accounts to gain the upper hand is banned here on wikipedia, you possibly will be blocked for this. [[Special:Contributions/86.147.70.148|86.147.70.148]] ([[User talk:86.147.70.148|talk]]) 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
+{{unblock|Please read
+here is some evidence that I have not been underhand, as you can see I explained
+I'm a sock, please read it to be fair:
+http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&diff=prev&oldid=199643368
+Here is Molag/Dr Nat telling me I will get a 'blocking' the check user did not pick
+up that too.
+http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregs_the_baker&oldid=199681499
+Also have you noticed his spin, trying to make out in a perceptual fallacy to
+blind someone from verificaytion that I have been underhand when I clearly haven't
+again check page I mean in his mind at that convenient admitting you are a sock
+response to a sock means you are being underhand, how is being transparent being
+underhand? Anyway check out what it says in WP:Sock:
+WP:SOCK
+(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock#Alternative_account_notification I was
+transparent.)
+Come on you are fair enough to let me verify the evidence to a human who can see
+transparency in evidence??? And see I have not been underhand? The evidence is
+there. This is really annoying that a sock has destroyed my wiki experience.
+This is seriously unfair, not to mention suspicious, how a prolific sock can spin
+his fallacies dupe a busy admin knowing full well the checkuser will be
+discriminatory, knowing that the machine checkuser will not pick up my transparancy,
+of me admitting I was a response to a molag sock.
+Also before my banning for a transparent sock reponse to a sock; and besides the
+perceptual fallacy that molag and Back Kite produce: I have had no history of any
+type of sock abuse from being underhand,  to being an ironic sock reply to the
+dynamic IP. And if you look at WP:SOCK, you will see you get blocked first banned
+second. Why the banning first for me when I was not even being underhand??? A
+banning were I can't see the appeals process over a time period of when an article I
+was interested in was UFD.
+Why not a block to condition???
+Why did I, who has no history of being a sock, get an indefinate banning?
+(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Gregs_the_baker)
+Why did I not get the correct procedure for first cases that say's block first?
+And then why did an administrator suddenly put an article I'm using as a project, up
+for deletion when I was 'conveniently' gone with the use of a discriminatory check
+user?
+Why did he apply a convenient association fallacy with Gregs the baker and molag bal?
+Since when has Molag Bal ever had a citation to edit rate as high as me?
+Why did he use an ad hominem sock and an association to a sock to attack all the
+citation work I had done to make these citations we could have verified on the talk
+page look bad in to a jury, a jury I was not allowed to answer to?
+Why did he select a few citations as an excuse to take down 153 citations?
+Why did he try to apply fallacies to his reasoning for pulling down these citations
+that were also quality citations and water tight in connection?
+Why did he not want the jury to see these fallacies I would have shown if I was able
+to contribute to the afd? (MOlag Bal, knows I spot and expose his fallacies. I
+reckon if I wasn't banned Black Kite would not have to the article up for deletion.
+Very suspicious???)?
+Why did he use emotional fallacies on his citations he had a problem with in order
+to blind the jury to verify the detail, the jury who some in the USA will have no
+idea what a geordie is? (<<<<<see how I've just answers that question inside the
+question?)
+Also have you not seen how I have exposed his glaring patternistic fallacy on the
+with regards to the heather mills citation that he used as an ad hominem for his
+strongest problem, to bring the article forward for deletion, that was so molag
+behaviour. (BTW if it is deleted I still have it and I can show you). Also Look at
+the edit history of the main geordie page over the past few months...
+There is something really suspicious with how this happened; and that as soon as I
+was conveniently banned by the discriminatory checkuser, some admin using similar
+fallacies to Molag, put the list of geordies article up for deletion, conveniently
+applying an ad hominem fallacy and an association fallacy to my gregs account to
+debase its reputation as a fair user in the wiki project. I mean there is no
+comparison between me and Molag. I've never wittingly used an underhand sock, Anyone
+who says there is is character assasinating. And my so called sock response to
+molag/Dr Nat (Dr Nat, the complaintant) was irony to his sock. And my sock after
+where protest socks, as I didn't -and still don't- have the foggiest how to complain
+and show this convenient account assasination. I was going against an egg timer on an article for deletion I had been gagged from commenting on. I have no use for protest socks now. (You would have the same protest socks as me if you had my suppression, anyone would.)
+Another titbit, this eitor used a recognisable pattern of a fallacy to dupe a reader
+on the history edit log on the main geordie page, he left a comment saying that the
+majority of the citations were around Newcastle/Tyneside a few weeks ago, if you
+look at the article edit at this time I corrected him, showing him that there are as
+many sources saying North East of England as Tyneside. He did not reply, because he
+knew I was not banned and would have rebutted him with evidence. He clearly has a
+problem with fallacy.
+Is there some suspicious puppet shenanigans going on here...
+But I can't thoroughly investigate since I'm not an admin.
+Yours sincerely,
+Gregs The Baker.
+}}