User talk:Renamed user 9

you

Trolling IP comment removed Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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 read here is some evidence that I have not been underhand... (Admins, check history to read the whole thing)

Decline reason:

Regardless of whether you think you were right or not, abusing multiple accounts in the manner you did is against policy and grounds for a block. A checkuser confirmed that you were doing this in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker. This means that your IP addresses conclusively matched those of the other accounts. Your long reasoning addressed no reasons why you would stop this behavior, only justifying your reasoning for doing so, which we are not interested in when considering your unblock. Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hersfold, Ok so at least we have aknowledged my Crispyducks678 was an ironic response channel to a dynamic IP sock and was not underhand, be it I admitted I was a sock to Alison. Which shows openess. Now please take in I was not completely informed at the time on sock puppetry. And though I knew it was wrong, be it my irony response to the IP was trying to show this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&diff=prev&oldid=199643368), I thought all admin would see what I was doing to a dynamic IP sock who has been plaguing and trolling the Geordie article using the same pattern of fallacies to take down perfectly connected citations for as long as I have been editing that article for the past 6months; I thought they would see my ironic response account and that I would not acknowledge him with my gregs the baker account. I thought they would see what I was doing. But I can see it from the admins side too: even if they admitted what I had done (which you say they haven't, which is fair enough) they might fear getting caught in a quagmire of perceptual spin from the troll. Now I'll demonstrate why I now know what I done was against policy: I have read up on WP:SOCK, and I have informed myself so I know the rules of WP:SOCK. Before I begin I would like you to know I don't believe in sock puppetry, my crispyducks678 account was an ironic response to a sock troll, for a demonstration purpose to the sock i.e. showin the sock what he was doing. My next socks were open socks (I've admitted them) that were 'protest socks' that come about as a consequence of me not knowing an appeals process to show my case, and the fact I was against an egg time on an article up for deletion, conveniently put up when I was gagged that I had a current interest in. I did not take any joy in them at all, I also disliked the fact that the 212+ sock IP could apply a convenient ad hominem of a sock and associate my account with his sock to suppress my say which would have elucidated his fallacies... But I felt I had been gagged and I chained myself with a placard to the wiki parliment if you like. If you look since I pulled the wrong wire, in the films they are always the red one connected on the timer, and I haven't socked since the egg timer ran out. I'm strongly against sock puppetry, that was what my ironic crispyducks678 was about. - I have realised any ironic response sock might even promote the idea of sock puppetry, which is not what the project needs... - I have read the rules on WP:SOCK - I've learned it is not in my interest to demonstrate to a sock, what he is doing. - I've never done sock puppetry (Though I did do an ironic sock, and, again, that lead to a banning with me through inexperience percieving no way to show my case in an egg timer which lead to protest socks trying to show whilst I was gagged the opportunistic fallacies and thus his blinding -to people who didn't know the subject like the brief readers from other countries- of the verification) and I will never do sock puppetry. I'm a fair user who believes in reference material for people to research and verify to a degree, I believe that is a human right. Sockpuppetry is not in my interest, or wiki's interests.

Decline reason:

The request is too long. Be more concise. — Sandstein (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

Request reason:

On the contrary to perception I have actually always been against sock puppetry and in this appeal you will see this, this means I will be as unlikely as you to sock again, even for the sake of an ironic reply to a 212 sock;

I have no previous history of being a sock, evidence: [[1]];

The rules on Alternative Sock Notification state that your first get blocked for sock puppetry, evidence:

[[2]], [[3]];

The experienced 212 sock troll in his perceptual spin full of fallacies, even admitted to inexperienced and uninformed gregs the baker that the ironic admitted response Crispyducks678 account of Gregs the baker could be blocked for this, evidence: [[4]];

The crispyducks678 account was an ironic response to a 212socking troll, I was open and transparent about it I notified admin about it, thus I was not underhand, evidence: [[5]], proof the inexperienced uninformed user is against socks, he was actually trying to combat a sock and condition the sock to fair play. Which brings to the case credibility and sincerity;

I was an inexperienced user who despite being against socks got banned indefinitely instead of blocked[[6]], [[7]];

As an inexperienced user who was banned indefinitely instead of being blocked, and an article List of Geordies I had an interest in that got put up for deletion, I as an inexperienced user, with regards to sock protocol did not know of an appeal process, I against the egg timer, felt gagged and pressurized, I had to pick one wire blinded, I wanted my say, I wanted to show fallacies;

My next socks were consequential reactionary protest socks at being gagged indefinitely and having an article of interest put up for deletion. I in my inexperience did not know of an appeals process;

If you check user against when the egg timer ran out I have not used another protest sock, or any type of sock;

I also admitted and notified my protest socks, thus was not being underhand using the Alternative Account Notification [[8]];

I have not used any sock response after the AFD egg timer ran out, and it was after that, through inexperience that I appealed days later on the 29th, if I had have known of an appeals process I would not have made protest socks;

As you can see I’m against all underhand sock puppetry, I have never been underhand and will now not even consider using an ironic sock reply to a 212 underhand sock. I believe I as an inexperienced user have a very big and credible case of being reinstated;

To Sandstein, and other admin users including User:Hersfold I’d like to request that if you have a problem with my appeal like with something missing, could you please in future notify me on the page before making a decision (like I said in the edit summary of my last appeal at 17:15, 30 March 2008 utc), so I can correct with little work and add that bit missing to my case, instead of drafting again. Anyway this is as concise as you can put all the case evidence together, when this template doesn’t currently do paragraphs to do short sentences favors. To combat the paragraph problem I have tried to see how the appeal template handles bullet points. Is it ingenious I don’t yet know until I press edit. Anyway if you don’t like the grammar I’d like to suggest to you to look at the case in edit.

To User:Hersfold Who the last reply was actually personally configured to reply to. You said in response, “Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked.” Well I have demonstrated in this text that I now have informed myself that socking is against policy, I have demonstrated that I will not do an open ironic sock again, and thus that means any type of sock. I believe I have a very, fair, credible and strong case and I have fitted your requirements.

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=

*On the contrary to perception I have actually ''always been against sock puppetry'' and in this appeal you will see this, this means I will be as unlikely as you to sock again, even for the sake of an ironic reply to a 212 sock;

*''I have no previous history of being a sock,'' evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The rules on Alternative Sock Notification state that your first get blocked for sock puppetry, evidence: 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The experienced 212 sock troll in his perceptual spin full of fallacies, even admitted to inexperienced and uninformed gregs the baker that the ironic admitted response Crispyducks678 account of Gregs the baker could be blocked for this, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregs_the_baker&oldid=199681499]];

*The crispyducks678 account was an ironic response to a 212socking troll, I was open and transparent about it I notified admin about it, thus I was not underhand, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]], proof the inexperienced uninformed user is against socks, he was actually trying to combat a sock and condition the sock to fair play. Which brings to the case credibility and sincerity;

*''I was an inexperienced user who despite being against socks got banned indefinitely instead of blocked''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]];

*As an inexperienced user who was banned indefinitely instead of being blocked, and an article List of Geordies I had an interest in that got put up for deletion, I as an inexperienced user, with regards to sock protocol did not know of an appeal process, I against the egg timer, felt gagged and pressurized, I had to pick one wire blinded, I wanted my say, I wanted to show fallacies;

*My next socks were consequential reactionary protest socks at being gagged indefinitely and having an article of interest put up for deletion. I in my inexperience did not know of an appeals process;

*If you check user against when the egg timer ran out I have not used another protest sock, or any type of sock;

*I also admitted and notified my protest socks, thus was not being underhand using the Alternative Account Notification [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]];

*I have not used any sock response after the AFD egg timer ran out, and it was after that, through inexperience that I appealed days later on the 29th, if I had have known of an appeals process I would not have made protest socks;

*As you can see I’m against all underhand sock puppetry, I have never been underhand and will now not even consider using an ironic sock reply to a 212 underhand sock. I believe I as an  inexperienced user have a very big and credible case of being reinstated;

*To [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], and other admin users including [[User:Hersfold]] I’d like to request that if you have a problem with my appeal like with something missing, could you please in future notify me on the page before making a decision (like I said in the edit summary of my last appeal at 17:15, 30 March 2008 utc), so I can correct with little work and add that bit missing to my case, instead of drafting again. Anyway this is as concise as you can put all the case evidence together, when this template doesn’t currently do paragraphs to do short sentences favors. To combat the paragraph problem I have tried to see how the appeal template handles bullet points. Is it ingenious I don’t yet know until I press edit. Anyway if you don’t like the grammar I’d like to suggest to you to look at the case in edit. 

*To [[User:Hersfold]] Who the last reply was actually personally configured to reply to. You said in response, “Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked.” Well I have demonstrated in this text that I now have informed myself that socking is against policy, I have demonstrated that I will not do an open ironic sock again, and thus that means any type of sock. I believe I have a very, fair, credible and strong case and I have fitted your requirements. |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=

*On the contrary to perception I have actually ''always been against sock puppetry'' and in this appeal you will see this, this means I will be as unlikely as you to sock again, even for the sake of an ironic reply to a 212 sock;

*''I have no previous history of being a sock,'' evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The rules on Alternative Sock Notification state that your first get blocked for sock puppetry, evidence: 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The experienced 212 sock troll in his perceptual spin full of fallacies, even admitted to inexperienced and uninformed gregs the baker that the ironic admitted response Crispyducks678 account of Gregs the baker could be blocked for this, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregs_the_baker&oldid=199681499]];

*The crispyducks678 account was an ironic response to a 212socking troll, I was open and transparent about it I notified admin about it, thus I was not underhand, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]], proof the inexperienced uninformed user is against socks, he was actually trying to combat a sock and condition the sock to fair play. Which brings to the case credibility and sincerity;

*''I was an inexperienced user who despite being against socks got banned indefinitely instead of blocked''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]];

*As an inexperienced user who was banned indefinitely instead of being blocked, and an article List of Geordies I had an interest in that got put up for deletion, I as an inexperienced user, with regards to sock protocol did not know of an appeal process, I against the egg timer, felt gagged and pressurized, I had to pick one wire blinded, I wanted my say, I wanted to show fallacies;

*My next socks were consequential reactionary protest socks at being gagged indefinitely and having an article of interest put up for deletion. I in my inexperience did not know of an appeals process;

*If you check user against when the egg timer ran out I have not used another protest sock, or any type of sock;

*I also admitted and notified my protest socks, thus was not being underhand using the Alternative Account Notification [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]];

*I have not used any sock response after the AFD egg timer ran out, and it was after that, through inexperience that I appealed days later on the 29th, if I had have known of an appeals process I would not have made protest socks;

*As you can see I’m against all underhand sock puppetry, I have never been underhand and will now not even consider using an ironic sock reply to a 212 underhand sock. I believe I as an  inexperienced user have a very big and credible case of being reinstated;

*To [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], and other admin users including [[User:Hersfold]] I’d like to request that if you have a problem with my appeal like with something missing, could you please in future notify me on the page before making a decision (like I said in the edit summary of my last appeal at 17:15, 30 March 2008 utc), so I can correct with little work and add that bit missing to my case, instead of drafting again. Anyway this is as concise as you can put all the case evidence together, when this template doesn’t currently do paragraphs to do short sentences favors. To combat the paragraph problem I have tried to see how the appeal template handles bullet points. Is it ingenious I don’t yet know until I press edit. Anyway if you don’t like the grammar I’d like to suggest to you to look at the case in edit. 

*To [[User:Hersfold]] Who the last reply was actually personally configured to reply to. You said in response, “Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked.” Well I have demonstrated in this text that I now have informed myself that socking is against policy, I have demonstrated that I will not do an open ironic sock again, and thus that means any type of sock. I believe I have a very, fair, credible and strong case and I have fitted your requirements. |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=

*On the contrary to perception I have actually ''always been against sock puppetry'' and in this appeal you will see this, this means I will be as unlikely as you to sock again, even for the sake of an ironic reply to a 212 sock;

*''I have no previous history of being a sock,'' evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The rules on Alternative Sock Notification state that your first get blocked for sock puppetry, evidence: 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], 
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gregs_the_baker]];

*The experienced 212 sock troll in his perceptual spin full of fallacies, even admitted to inexperienced and uninformed gregs the baker that the ironic admitted response Crispyducks678 account of Gregs the baker could be blocked for this, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregs_the_baker&oldid=199681499]];

*The crispyducks678 account was an ironic response to a 212socking troll, I was open and transparent about it I notified admin about it, thus I was not underhand, evidence: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]], proof the inexperienced uninformed user is against socks, he was actually trying to combat a sock and condition the sock to fair play. Which brings to the case credibility and sincerity;

*''I was an inexperienced user who despite being against socks got banned indefinitely instead of blocked''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&oldid=199643368]];

*As an inexperienced user who was banned indefinitely instead of being blocked, and an article List of Geordies I had an interest in that got put up for deletion, I as an inexperienced user, with regards to sock protocol did not know of an appeal process, I against the egg timer, felt gagged and pressurized, I had to pick one wire blinded, I wanted my say, I wanted to show fallacies;

*My next socks were consequential reactionary protest socks at being gagged indefinitely and having an article of interest put up for deletion. I in my inexperience did not know of an appeals process;

*If you check user against when the egg timer ran out I have not used another protest sock, or any type of sock;

*I also admitted and notified my protest socks, thus was not being underhand using the Alternative Account Notification [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry&oldid=200682917#Alternative_account_notification]];

*I have not used any sock response after the AFD egg timer ran out, and it was after that, through inexperience that I appealed days later on the 29th, if I had have known of an appeals process I would not have made protest socks;

*As you can see I’m against all underhand sock puppetry, I have never been underhand and will now not even consider using an ironic sock reply to a 212 underhand sock. I believe I as an  inexperienced user have a very big and credible case of being reinstated;

*To [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], and other admin users including [[User:Hersfold]] I’d like to request that if you have a problem with my appeal like with something missing, could you please in future notify me on the page before making a decision (like I said in the edit summary of my last appeal at 17:15, 30 March 2008 utc), so I can correct with little work and add that bit missing to my case, instead of drafting again. Anyway this is as concise as you can put all the case evidence together, when this template doesn’t currently do paragraphs to do short sentences favors. To combat the paragraph problem I have tried to see how the appeal template handles bullet points. Is it ingenious I don’t yet know until I press edit. Anyway if you don’t like the grammar I’d like to suggest to you to look at the case in edit. 

*To [[User:Hersfold]] Who the last reply was actually personally configured to reply to. You said in response, “Unless you can demonstrate that you know why what you did was against policy, and that you will not do it again, you are unlikely to be unblocked.” Well I have demonstrated in this text that I now have informed myself that socking is against policy, I have demonstrated that I will not do an open ironic sock again, and thus that means any type of sock. I believe I have a very, fair, credible and strong case and I have fitted your requirements. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}