User talk:Mrs.EasterBunny
Mrs.EasterBunny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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=see below, paragraph form can't be used in this template. |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=see below, paragraph form can't be used in this template. |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=see below, paragraph form can't be used in this template. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
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 there. A model to copy? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)