User talk:HTI 483

I WP:IAR removed an unblock request from this talk page because it didn't actually give any reason for unblocking or in any way addressed the issue that resulted in the block (spamming multiple talk pages -- including mine -- and probable sockpuppetry). Instead it was substantively the same content as the spam, which I consider to be gaming the system. No, you cannot use an unblock request to create an undeletable copy of the spam that was deleted elsewhere.

I encourage HTI 483 to post a new unblock request that follows the advice found in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and does not repeat the material he spammed my talk page with. Please note that I have no prior involvement with the people or issues talked about in the spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you despise people gaming the system this much Guy, then it really isn't me you should be concerned with. I'm not that fussed about being unblocked, the request was more about highlighting Nick's unsuitability to be the one doing it more than anything else. And reminding DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) and Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) not to be so gullible - the longer they ignore what's starting them in the face, the more indefensible their inaction will appear to be to everyone else. HTI 483 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about any of that. If I see your concerns in an appropriate place (ANI, DRN, or even Jimbo's talk page) I might very well look into them. I refuse to reward spamming by looking into the issue that was spammed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you want me to do? I have no access to CU information, so I can't pursue that. I have noticed a few unusual things from the last SPI that was filed (by an ex-oversighter) but my emails to CheckUsers to have the matter looked into have gone unanswered or have been ignored or completely blown off. So what can I do about the matter? Absolutely nothing. You're barking up the wrong tree.

But meanwhile, let me give you some advice: creating sock accounts and spamming about the matter across multiple talk pages surely doesn't encourage CUs to look into the matter either; it rather discourages them, per WP:DENY. --Rs chen 7754 20:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTI 483, I have had my disagreements with Rschen7754 in the past, but your accusations simply do not ring true. He isn't at all gullible, and he does not ignore problems. His advice about WP:DENY is sound. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that HTI 483's behavior has resulted in his block setting being changed to expiry time of indefinite, account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page. I am now unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC) ‎[reply]

I, like Rschen7754 lack any access to the technical data and tools necessary to even begin to investigate allegations of sockpuppetry. I would also point out I have little to do with NFCC today, and have spent a period in semi retirement, so haven't been following any of this and can't even begin to discern whether your allegations have any merit. Nick (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]