User talk:Ducksofmercy

Welcome!

Hello, Ducksofmercy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Acalamari 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. In the future, please do not experiment on article pages; instead, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:43, 9 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I am definitely not a sockpuppet of that guy. I'm not sure why you think that I am.

Decline reason:

It has been proven that you are. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 16:24, 20 May 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.

I will contact the blocking administrator. Tiptoety ^talk 14:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions

I would like to point out that there is nothing in my contributions to suggest vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksofmercy (talk • contribs)

I'm looking into this case. It's a complicated one, and will probably take a day to review. Enough to say there is reason for concern, and I'll get back to you today or tomorrow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

Having now cleaned up the main sock ring I was looking into, I can return to you. Apologies for the delay.

I have now reviewed and feel that there is a very strong likelihood that you are correctly identified as a Wikipedia sockpuppet of Zippycup. Checkuser evidence as well as a wide range of edit matters (some revealed by checkuser) support this finding strongly. I don't propose to post the detailed evidence here, but a number of uninvolved administrators have reviewed it and will confirm if necessary, that the interpretation is "beyond reasonable doubt". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence reviewed, and block endorsed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:07, 21 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Well the Checkuser must be wrong then!! I assure you that I am not a sockpuppet of Zippygup, and just because I edited the same article as him doesn't make me so. Also, if you notice all I was doing was clearing up some of the dodgy links in the article, NOT vandalising. How you can say that it is beyond reasonable doubt is beyond me. Please review this case again - I am very annoyed

Decline reason:

It's a beautiful day. Checkuser has confirmed that you are User:Zippycup, and a second reviewer has endorsed that confirmation. The sun is shining, and little birds are tweeting in the trees. Why not accept the block and go out for a walk? Take the dog; she'll appreciate the exercise. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 May 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).

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

Request reason:

What the hell does Checkuser know then?!?! I mean, what has it actually told you. I am definitely not a sockpuppet of Zippygup, and quite frankly am tired of he shoddy treatment that I have been given. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the dismissive and sarcastic tone of the administrators on Wikipedia who have been 'dealing' with my complaint. (see blocking reason above). I'll point out once again that at no point have I vandalised any page. I thought you were supposed to assume good faith. How many other innocent people have you blocked because of the faults in your checkuser programme.

Decline reason:

Sorry to say, but blocks based on checkuser investigation and supporting evidence are rarely ever overturned. I've looked around a bit: there are some very striking and distinctive similarities between this account and Zippycup, in terms in editing style and language use; both accounts appear to be active in a similar area and at similar times; several other administrators who don't appear to have any stake in the matter have weighed in, and also believe this account is a sockpuppet; it seems pretty well established that Zippycup has sockpuppets, and this account strongly appears to be one. I'm sorry if you're not a sockpuppet, really, but unfortunately all of the evidence I'm seeing suggests that you are. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:20, 22 May 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).

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

Request reason:

So what you are saying is that, if I wish to carry on editing Wikipedia, I have to create another account. But then I'll be creating a another account , which is what I have been falsely accused of and blocked for in the first place. It seems as though there is an incredible bias towards admins on this Wiki - they can do no wrong, and everyone else is a suspect, regardless of past behaviour. Please reconsider my block, as I believe that I have made all edits (except one, accidental and self-reverted) within Wikipedia guidelines

Decline reason:

Page has already been protected; this is just a formality. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:13, 22 May 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.

Once a fourth admin has reviewed your request, I think that'll be sufficient unblock requests to consider that you've had a fair review. I'll help you accept the block by preventing you from making further requests after this one. If that fourth admin decides that the evidence indicates that you should be unblocked, that admin can also unprotect this page; if the decision is that the block stands, you won't need this talk page any more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence tying them together, much of which only becomes really visible via Checkuser. That's in addition to what everyone else is seeing, of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]