User talk:Berber1

February 2011

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Libya, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What defamatory content did I add? Quote please. Berber1 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is an egregious WP:CIVIL violation; "tit for tat" not a Wikipedia policy, while "slacktivists who may have just learned the country of Libya existed last week" is the specific defamatory term. Your post is also declaring an intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid a WP:CIVIL violation I, intentionally, did not refer to anyone by name. Long before I ever get penalized for WP:CIVIL - I hope and expect - the people who have been using epithets like "pro-Qadaffi" (directed at a SPECIFIC USER) are, likewise, penalized. Are those plans in the works? Berber1 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Felixhonecker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Berber1 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Berber1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The admin approving this block appears to have had an edit conflict with the user whose sock I was accused of being. I would like an impartial admin to please review it and to provide a reasonable explanation in response to my defense as to why this block is being made instead of simply approving it without explanation. Please note (1) average log-in time is significantly different within the confines of waking hours, (2) there is only one overlap in page edits and it involves a topic that is preeminent in the news at present time, (3) I have already noted and admitted freely on the Libya talk page that I had a previous WP account and this is a new one (but not a Sock), (4) a higher standard of evidence should be applied for similarity in edit interests when the page in question is of major focus in the news cycle and is logically likely to attract new or lapsed editors, (5) I have actively requested CheckUser and no courtesy of it has been extended to me, nor an explanation as to why it has not been. Thank you. Berber1 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

For none of the reasons above - especially the allegation of having an edit conflict the alleged sock - CU shows unlikely. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I do not accept the CU result of "unlikely" and I have added the suspected sockpuppet tag to the user page. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]