User talk:24.42.221.147

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for Block Evasion, however while yes I am anonymous (which is in no way a violation of wikipedia rules). This is my home IP, and this block was baseless and I'm guessing a spiteful abuse of admin tools to block me for my disagreement with the block of another user. I request this block be lifted and would not mind the admin responsible for the block to be tutored on correct usage of his admin tools.

Decline reason:

Read WP:DUCK and WP:MEAT. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2012 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I first of all take rather great offense to the suggestion of meat puppetry, while I came aware of this dispute from some discussion about it elsewhere, by no means was I asked to take part in it, nor did anyone know until after the lock was enacted on the block discussion that I'd posted there. Meat puppetry clearly asserts that recruitment of persons partaking in the discussion of the user has occurred. This is false and I feel clearly ignoring the necessity of assuming good faith. Second, I'm not fully understanding the suggestion of WP:DUCK, If me, being an IP user who happened across this case and felt it worth my time and effort to take part in the discussion on this wiki, is all it takes for me to be "obviously a sock puppet" via the duck test, then perhaps it is less me who ought read WP:DUCK and rather you, as I don't think you fully understand the implications and intent of WP:DUCK, as I meet zero of the qualifiers. So, again I request an unblock as well as for you to stop trying to make rules fit my case rather than finding rules that DO fit my case. I've never violated any of the rules herein.

Decline reason:

Even if the accusation of block evasion is unjustified, your editing has been aggressive and discourteous to other editors, sometimes containing personal attacks. You need to realise that such a style of editing is not acceptable on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2012 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

"First, I made perhaps one statement that could be construed as personal, and I'll agree that was a bit short on my behalf and likely uncalled for. However, justifying this block (which is a block evasion block) by stating I've committed an act which unto itself would definitely not result in a block for a first time offense (but perhaps an admonishment, or as likely, nothing at all unless it was a repetitive action). There were some statements also made concerning me being a sock, and I feel they came to the correct conclusions. "My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *If I cannot post as an IP, something supposedly completely allowed by wikipedia, I'm wondering which rules apply and which don't. It is becoming more and more seemingly very very and disturbingly arbitrary in enforcement. Where the action of one, who they feel doesn't meet THEIR standards, is quickly dealt with with blocks and otherwise (such as my case) where as making offensive personal attacks directly at my person, (ie. me being called a meatbag by the other admin) had zero regard, even though WP:MEAT itself suggests being very careful using this.

My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you rerain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This statement makes me VERY angry. The norms I suspect he is suggesting is having an account. I don't need to, I am not required to. The idealistic norms of certain people are NOT what make the guidelines as he seems to be inferring here with suggestions I'll be blocked if I continue to do so using my IP as I was. As well, not fitting in with community "norms" are not reason for a block either.

The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attack to point out that this character doesn't fully understand the definition of the term "obviously". IT simply cannot be obvious, as I AM not a sock.

That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Now he is doing it correctly. He's not jumping to conclusions such as the prior editor is, and he is actually right, they don't match, because I'm not a sock, and this is my actual IP. Just that I choose to use it, is not enough to warrant a block. Just because I said that the actions of the other block were suggestive of mental illness, does not warrant a block. Although, my first edits are from an IP, shouldn't be suggestive of puppetry without further evidence, which without completely ignoring "Assume Good Faith" one cannot come to the conclusion that I am a sock from what has been suggested as "evidence".

Even the article on blocks, suggest that what is occurring here to me is outside of the correct manner of usage of a block. Again I request an unblock on the grounds that this block is baseless and false. The accusations are unfounded and completely untrue. Furthermore, I suspect that I'll be chided (and likely blocked from editing my user page) due to what they'll call "Unblock request abuse", however I'd like to preface this by assuring you that these repeat unblock requests are well within guidelines and my rebuttals to the comments of the prior reviewing admins are justifiable and thus do not warrant such a block if one were to be considered (which given the actions already taken against me and the suggested reasoning behind them, I don't think that it is unwarranted to assume this likely to occur. Given that it would block me from editing my user page, I feel I should address it here. Hopefully it won't come to that, and if it does, I request that the admin instating the block examine all of my discussion here and break it down where I am actually wrong and not justified in my responses.

So in finality. I request to be unblocked. My block is under false accusations. I am not a sock of any sort, not meat, not cotton, not whatever type may be suggested. I am a real person, to use my IP as my "name" when posting is fully supported by wikipedia's rules, all the rules it has been, as well, subsequently suggested I violate, either are untrue or (to what Idid admit to) does not warrant a block according to the very rules they are applying to this case. As such. The block should be removed in accordance to the guidelines stated in both block appeal and blocking articles. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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="First, I made perhaps one statement that could be construed as personal, and I'll agree that was a bit short on my behalf and likely uncalled for. However, justifying this block (which is a block evasion block) by stating I've committed an act which unto itself would definitely not result in a block for a first time offense (but perhaps an admonishment, or as likely, nothing at all unless it was a repetitive action). There were some statements also made concerning me being a sock, and I feel they came to the correct conclusions. "My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *If I cannot post as an IP, something supposedly completely allowed by wikipedia, I'm wondering which rules apply and which don't. It is becoming more and more seemingly very very and disturbingly arbitrary in enforcement. Where the action of one, who they feel doesn't meet THEIR standards, is quickly dealt with with blocks and otherwise (such as my case) where as making offensive personal attacks directly at my person, (ie. me being called a meatbag by the other admin) had zero regard, even though WP:MEAT itself suggests being very careful using this. My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you rerain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) * This statement makes me VERY angry. The norms I suspect he is suggesting is having an account. I don't need to, I am not required to. The idealistic norms of certain people are NOT what make the guidelines as he seems to be inferring here with suggestions I'll be blocked if I continue to do so using my IP as I was. As well, not fitting in with community "norms" are not reason for a block either. The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *It is not a personal attack to point out that this character doesn't fully understand the definition of the term "obviously". IT simply cannot be obvious, as I AM not a sock. That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *Now he is doing it correctly. He's not jumping to conclusions such as the prior editor is, and he is actually right, they don't match, because I'm not a sock, and this is my actual IP. Just that I choose to use it, is not enough to warrant a block. Just because I said that the actions of the other block were suggestive of mental illness, does not warrant a block. Although, my first edits are from an IP, shouldn't be suggestive of puppetry without further evidence, which without completely ignoring "Assume Good Faith" one cannot come to the conclusion that I am a sock from what has been suggested as "evidence". Even the article on blocks, suggest that what is occurring here to me is outside of the correct manner of usage of a block. Again I request an unblock on the grounds that this block is baseless and false. The accusations are unfounded and completely untrue. Furthermore, I suspect that I'll be chided (and likely blocked from editing my user page) due to what they'll call "Unblock request abuse", however I'd like to preface this by assuring you that these repeat unblock requests are well within guidelines and my rebuttals to the comments of the prior reviewing admins are justifiable and thus do not warrant such a block if one were to be considered (which given the actions already taken against me and the suggested reasoning behind them, I don't think that it is unwarranted to assume this likely to occur. Given that it would block me from editing my user page, I feel I should address it here. Hopefully it won't come to that, and if it does, I request that the admin instating the block examine all of my discussion here and break it down where I am actually wrong and not justified in my responses. So in finality. I request to be unblocked. My block is under false accusations. I am not a sock of any sort, not meat, not cotton, not whatever type may be suggested. I am a real person, to use my IP as my "name" when posting is fully supported by wikipedia's rules, all the rules it has been, as well, subsequently suggested I violate, either are untrue or (to what Idid admit to) does not warrant a block according to the very rules they are applying to this case. As such. The block should be removed in accordance to the guidelines stated in both block appeal and blocking articles. [[Special:Contributions/24.42.221.147|24.42.221.147]] ([[User talk:24.42.221.147#top|talk]]) 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |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="First, I made perhaps one statement that could be construed as personal, and I'll agree that was a bit short on my behalf and likely uncalled for. However, justifying this block (which is a block evasion block) by stating I've committed an act which unto itself would definitely not result in a block for a first time offense (but perhaps an admonishment, or as likely, nothing at all unless it was a repetitive action). There were some statements also made concerning me being a sock, and I feel they came to the correct conclusions. "My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *If I cannot post as an IP, something supposedly completely allowed by wikipedia, I'm wondering which rules apply and which don't. It is becoming more and more seemingly very very and disturbingly arbitrary in enforcement. Where the action of one, who they feel doesn't meet THEIR standards, is quickly dealt with with blocks and otherwise (such as my case) where as making offensive personal attacks directly at my person, (ie. me being called a meatbag by the other admin) had zero regard, even though WP:MEAT itself suggests being very careful using this. My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you rerain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) * This statement makes me VERY angry. The norms I suspect he is suggesting is having an account. I don't need to, I am not required to. The idealistic norms of certain people are NOT what make the guidelines as he seems to be inferring here with suggestions I'll be blocked if I continue to do so using my IP as I was. As well, not fitting in with community "norms" are not reason for a block either. The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *It is not a personal attack to point out that this character doesn't fully understand the definition of the term "obviously". IT simply cannot be obvious, as I AM not a sock. That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *Now he is doing it correctly. He's not jumping to conclusions such as the prior editor is, and he is actually right, they don't match, because I'm not a sock, and this is my actual IP. Just that I choose to use it, is not enough to warrant a block. Just because I said that the actions of the other block were suggestive of mental illness, does not warrant a block. Although, my first edits are from an IP, shouldn't be suggestive of puppetry without further evidence, which without completely ignoring "Assume Good Faith" one cannot come to the conclusion that I am a sock from what has been suggested as "evidence". Even the article on blocks, suggest that what is occurring here to me is outside of the correct manner of usage of a block. Again I request an unblock on the grounds that this block is baseless and false. The accusations are unfounded and completely untrue. Furthermore, I suspect that I'll be chided (and likely blocked from editing my user page) due to what they'll call "Unblock request abuse", however I'd like to preface this by assuring you that these repeat unblock requests are well within guidelines and my rebuttals to the comments of the prior reviewing admins are justifiable and thus do not warrant such a block if one were to be considered (which given the actions already taken against me and the suggested reasoning behind them, I don't think that it is unwarranted to assume this likely to occur. Given that it would block me from editing my user page, I feel I should address it here. Hopefully it won't come to that, and if it does, I request that the admin instating the block examine all of my discussion here and break it down where I am actually wrong and not justified in my responses. So in finality. I request to be unblocked. My block is under false accusations. I am not a sock of any sort, not meat, not cotton, not whatever type may be suggested. I am a real person, to use my IP as my "name" when posting is fully supported by wikipedia's rules, all the rules it has been, as well, subsequently suggested I violate, either are untrue or (to what Idid admit to) does not warrant a block according to the very rules they are applying to this case. As such. The block should be removed in accordance to the guidelines stated in both block appeal and blocking articles. [[Special:Contributions/24.42.221.147|24.42.221.147]] ([[User talk:24.42.221.147#top|talk]]) 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |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="First, I made perhaps one statement that could be construed as personal, and I'll agree that was a bit short on my behalf and likely uncalled for. However, justifying this block (which is a block evasion block) by stating I've committed an act which unto itself would definitely not result in a block for a first time offense (but perhaps an admonishment, or as likely, nothing at all unless it was a repetitive action). There were some statements also made concerning me being a sock, and I feel they came to the correct conclusions. "My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *If I cannot post as an IP, something supposedly completely allowed by wikipedia, I'm wondering which rules apply and which don't. It is becoming more and more seemingly very very and disturbingly arbitrary in enforcement. Where the action of one, who they feel doesn't meet THEIR standards, is quickly dealt with with blocks and otherwise (such as my case) where as making offensive personal attacks directly at my person, (ie. me being called a meatbag by the other admin) had zero regard, even though WP:MEAT itself suggests being very careful using this. My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you rerain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC) * This statement makes me VERY angry. The norms I suspect he is suggesting is having an account. I don't need to, I am not required to. The idealistic norms of certain people are NOT what make the guidelines as he seems to be inferring here with suggestions I'll be blocked if I continue to do so using my IP as I was. As well, not fitting in with community "norms" are not reason for a block either. The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *It is not a personal attack to point out that this character doesn't fully understand the definition of the term "obviously". IT simply cannot be obvious, as I AM not a sock. That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC) *Now he is doing it correctly. He's not jumping to conclusions such as the prior editor is, and he is actually right, they don't match, because I'm not a sock, and this is my actual IP. Just that I choose to use it, is not enough to warrant a block. Just because I said that the actions of the other block were suggestive of mental illness, does not warrant a block. Although, my first edits are from an IP, shouldn't be suggestive of puppetry without further evidence, which without completely ignoring "Assume Good Faith" one cannot come to the conclusion that I am a sock from what has been suggested as "evidence". Even the article on blocks, suggest that what is occurring here to me is outside of the correct manner of usage of a block. Again I request an unblock on the grounds that this block is baseless and false. The accusations are unfounded and completely untrue. Furthermore, I suspect that I'll be chided (and likely blocked from editing my user page) due to what they'll call "Unblock request abuse", however I'd like to preface this by assuring you that these repeat unblock requests are well within guidelines and my rebuttals to the comments of the prior reviewing admins are justifiable and thus do not warrant such a block if one were to be considered (which given the actions already taken against me and the suggested reasoning behind them, I don't think that it is unwarranted to assume this likely to occur. Given that it would block me from editing my user page, I feel I should address it here. Hopefully it won't come to that, and if it does, I request that the admin instating the block examine all of my discussion here and break it down where I am actually wrong and not justified in my responses. So in finality. I request to be unblocked. My block is under false accusations. I am not a sock of any sort, not meat, not cotton, not whatever type may be suggested. I am a real person, to use my IP as my "name" when posting is fully supported by wikipedia's rules, all the rules it has been, as well, subsequently suggested I violate, either are untrue or (to what Idid admit to) does not warrant a block according to the very rules they are applying to this case. As such. The block should be removed in accordance to the guidelines stated in both block appeal and blocking articles. [[Special:Contributions/24.42.221.147|24.42.221.147]] ([[User talk:24.42.221.147#top|talk]]) 20:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}