User talk:Soupforone

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This block has been applied per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock of my account. Reasons as per WP:GAPB-- (1) I have read the closing rationale on the case and understand it. (2) The block is incorrect, as I have provided statistical data demonstrating that I am not socking or meatpuppeting, including generally different normal edit times, durations, edit summaries, edited pages (over 97% of total edited pages aren't shared), and data sizes [1]. (3) I also provided an ip address associated with the Middayexpress account for the Checkuser clerk to confirm that we are different editors [2], but the case was closed before a clerk had a chance to run the Checkuser tool. (4) Two of the moderators who commented in the case's administrator area, Drmies and Nick-D, have had past issues with the editor Middayexpress [3] [4]. As per WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE, they are therefore not neutral administrators in this case. (5) Nick-D both closed the case and blocked me although he has a conflict of interest in it. (6) The closing rationale for the case contains factual errors. Nick-D claims therein that there were no dissenting opinions, when actually the editors AcidSnow [5] and Lorstaking [6] dissented. I therefore ask that I be unblocked so that the case may continue normally, without interference by involved moderators. Should an uninvolved administrator later examine the Checkuser tool and other data and determine otherwise, I will be mature about the outcome and in my appeal I will promise to follow Wikipedia community customs, including a WP:CLEANSTART if required. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As this is a complicated case, and I do not have all the technical information as a neutral, uninvolved admin - I think your best bet here would be to contact the arbitration committee directly. SQL^{Query me!} 06:17, 31 March 2018 (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.

Thank you, @SQL:. It is good to see that there are fair administrators out there who understand that WP:INVOLVED administrators cannot misuse the moderator tools and privileges that have been given to them without consequences, such as a desysop if necessary. As per your recommendation and WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE, I will forward the Arbitration Committee the details. I certainly will have ample time to do that now and more. All the best-- Soupforone (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@SQL:, as per your recommendation above, I have forwarded the details to the Arbitration Committee, including the earlier confirmed meatpuppeting in the RFC-user case. Thanks again for the advice. All the best-- Soupforone (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@SQL:, I received an email back from the Arbitration Committee. The details that I forwarded on the case are apparently on a wait list, after which point they will be reviewed. I will let you know when they get through. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of any reviewing ArbCom members or admins, I have since blocked another sockpuppet of this person: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress refers. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of the ArbCom members and administrators, Checkuser never proved that Middayexpress was my sock because of course Nick-D blocked my account before a Checkuser clerk had the opportunity to run the tool. And when a Checkuser clerk did finally have a chance to run the tool, they unsurprisingly found that the other account accused above and myself were unrelated. The latest block is just another example of a rogue moderator abusing the administrator tools that were provisionally granted to him in violation of WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE. Although I advised against it in my email to the Arbitration Committee, I therefore now think that dysoping this individual may be the appropriate course of action since they clearly have no regard for that administrator policy. Soupforone (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Since the Middayexpress account hasn't been used since 25 May 2015, it is not possible to run a checkuser on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that both the Troyoleg editor and myself are Middayexpress socks, yet the Checkuser tool found that we are unrelated. I will be sure to point this out as well in my next email to the Arbitration Committee. Soupforone (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A checkuser is not the be-all and end-all, though (see WP:PIXIEDUST). The accounts were blocked on the behavioural evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. The accounts were blocked by a WP:INVOLVED moderator who had a personal grudge against Middayexpress [7]. Soupforone (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, could you please also run the Checkuser tool on the Geneticanthro account? Another bogus socking claim was apparently made, and I would like my name cleared from that one as well. Soupforone (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)