User talk:Bsharvy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I consider Life.temp my main account. Please leave comments there. Bsharvy (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

slakrtalk / 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bsharvy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I previously gave this argument under my Life.temp account, but was told to do it under this account. So here it is again... What is the point of a policy like "ignore all rules" (IAR) if admins never look past the rules? Here are the facts: There is no documented disruption in this case. None of my accounts were used to double-vote, or misrepresent a level of support for a dispute. My last block was in Sep. 2007 (as bsharvy). The only exception is the Rachel63 account. I've been checkusered twice in the last three months, and neither supported that sockpuppet allegation (it isn't mine). Yet, there is no other case of bad-faith editing in this entire matter. Just the facts. In summary, I was mistakenly blocked for sockpuppeting with Rachel63; I invoked "IAR" and made good-faith edits with other accounts; there are no blocks or double-votes with the other accounts; two checkusers have failed to confirm Rachel63 (it isn't mine). It is unfair to use checkuser only as evidence of guilt and never innocence. Review the case in the spirit of IAR, looking at contribs and block logs, please

Decline reason:

Declining due to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy; ignore all rules does not mean that you can edit war and violate 3RR with multiple accounts. — seicer | talk | contribs 17:03, 20 June 2008 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bsharvy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Seicer, I didn't edit war or violate 3RR with any accounts, as the contribs and block show. I didn't even use my accounts simultaneously. Look at the facts, as shown by the contribs and block log.

Decline reason:

The history of Anti-Americanism (see) very clearly shows you were edit warring. Even if this account was not in itself involved, you were clearly abusing multiple accounts and openly admit to sockpuppetry. WP:SOCK clearly outlines appropriate reasons to use multiple accounts. My current usage is one of them, protecting the administrative account User:Hersfold by using a less secure and less important account without admin rights. Editing articles to edit war, then using IAR to claim it's acceptable is not appropriate; IAR applies only when common sense directs you to take an action that policy would otherwise prevent. Common sense does not say disruptive edit warring is acceptable. As for your checkuser claims, we often apply the "duck" test - the edits made by Rachel63 closely match your own, after an edit summary by another editor threatened to take the issue to WP:ANI for review. It's far too much of a coincidence to believe that was not you, or at the very least someone else editing on your behalf. While not currently logged into my admin account, I decline the unblock. — Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 00:24, 21 June 2008 (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.

The edit history linked to above doesn't show edit warring that is unique to me, or that violates policy. There aren't even more than two edits made in a 24 hour period. What to do when admins go out of their way to avoid fact and reason... Make a new account? Wikipedia policy is good at creating incentives to make sockpuppets.... Bsharvy (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They checkusered again? That's probably why they finally unblocked me. You should try requesting an unblock again. They unblocked me, so maybe they are realizing they made a mistake. I am trying to get the simplest neutrality tag back on the AA page. At least Equazion isn't there any more! Rachel63 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bsharvy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Huh, if you're going to unblock Rachel63, you should unblock me, since that is the only case that would constitute disruptive use of multiple accounts, if it were true. As I've pointed out several times: nobody has actually made an effort to document any disruption since March (the Rachel63 case). I haven't been blocked for 3RR in a year, and never been blocked for vandalism or other disruption. I used no accounts to edit the same article simultaneously, so never used them to evade 3RR rules or fake shows of support. The page t links to above as proof of "clearly edit warring" doesn't show more than two reverts in 24 hours. Gee, make an effort.... It doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgment of the point that nobody has even tried to document any disruption by since March.

Decline reason:

The fact is that Rachel63 is you, Bsharvy. The CheckUser evidence is, in my opinion, strong in linking you together, and I would happily mark this one  Confirmed. The fact that that account was unblocked, has edit-warred again and has been reblocked leaves no reason at all to think that you will contribute helpfully. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (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.

Oh, what do you know, Marskel, of all people, re-blocked Rachel63 over the very article he has been editing, and disputing, for years, and did so without warning, because she made 1 revert a day. What a class act. What a waste of time. Do admins really take seriously the charge of policing themselves, or are these appeals just opportunities to rubber-stamp approval for buddies in the clubhouse? Bsharvy (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, you definitely have socked (even if you exclude Rachel). Take a peek at Bshanvy (talk · contribs), for example.

The fact that I unblocked Rachel was out of pure assumption of good faith that the user wanted to edit productively on the encyclopedia. Naturally, the user made a b-line directly back to that same article, despite my numerous warnings that that would probably be a bad thing to do, and another admin blocked, again assuming it was you. Basically this just helps solidify my original suspicion that Rachel was you, because I don't know about anyone else, but if I was unjustly accused of something I didn't do, I would, at all costs, avoid the literally one in two millionth article on the encyclopedia for fear of getting blocked again. --slakrtalk / 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Having multiple accounts isn't the same as abusing them: I didn't use any multiple accounts to double-vote, avoid 3RR, or anything like that. There is no policy violation, except evading the initial (wrong) block, and given none of the accounts were used disruptively, it is a case of IAR.
  • If you are going to say things like "The CheckUser evidence is, in my opinion, strong in linking you together" it would be polite to tell me what the evidence is. Sometimes there are misunderstandings, which people are entitled to explain. To my knowledge, the only checkuser evidence I need to explain is that we live in the same country.
  • I see one revert a day by Rachel, to one article, while editing other articles constructively. If she was warned not to edit the article, then a more polite and reasonable approach would have been a topic-ban, or a mentor, or some middle ground. You aren't going to get that when Marskel is the one doing the blocking--according to Rachel without any warning or discussion. Marskel has a flat-out conflict of interest; it is a violation of policy for him to be blocking editors on that article, for making edits he opposes on content grounds.
  • Following the rules is a standard admins apply to everyone but themselves.
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bsharvy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere, but I can't stand leaving factual distortion uncorrected. 1) The only remotely suspicious checkuser result is that Rachel and I live in the same country. We said that before the checkuser, so there is no new information. If Sam Korn has other checkuser evidence, it's a secret. 2) Rachel63 didn't edit war. Marskel, the blocking editor, has previously called an editor a motherfucker ("nowhere mf on this article"} [1]. The context? The editor thought the article wasn't neutral. It's a textbook case of ownership by Marskel. Rachel63's lone edit? To add a "Neutrality is disputed" tag. Now she's blocked and denounced for edit-warring. 3) Blocks are for ongoing disruption. I've done nothing disruptive in a year, as the logs show. Even granting the Rachel63 allegation theoretically, I've done nothing disruptive for 6 months. Rather, I've bent over backwards to use dispute resolution [2] . This is a block in the absence of disruption, based on "rules for the sake of rules", pushed by an admin--an ADMIN--who feels entitled to call an editor a motherfucker and block on the basis on content. Follow your own policy.... Bsharvy (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser results, history of edit warring; unblock template abuse. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:43, 12 September 2008 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bsharvy (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

For all the reasons given in the body of this page, none of which have been addressed. It is false I have a history of edit warring, false I have a history of vandalism, false I have a history of abusing multiple accounts. It is false any checkuser result shows any abuse of multiple accounts. Rachel63 and myself don't even share a computer. It is true I edited while blocked, but that is not itself disruptive. It is false I used any multiple account to double-vote, fake show of support, or violate any policy other than editing while blocked, which I did non-disruptively. In the entire body of this page, one admin has produced one diff to attempt support of one allegation--edit-warring--except the diff showed no violation of policy. That doesn't cut it. The most basic principle of fairness is that you support allegations with diffs, links, quotes, or other evidence. Unsupported accusations are insults, a policy violation. Document the accusations or retract them. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Agree with all of the above admin reviews. Confirmed checkuser, disruption, incivility, etc. — Cirt (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2008 (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.