User talk:LowKing

Oops, LowHigh is me, created by mistake. Sorry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for impersonation account. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 20:38, 7 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock and end all autoblocks. This was a good faith attempt to tie up a user name so that it can never be used with confusion. It was even redirected to HighKing so that someone with poor memory typing Lowking would be directed at the proper person. You may re-block this and label it doppleganger. Please AGF and do not be nasty.

Decline reason:

If a user felt the need to protect their own identity, they would register accounts themselves. As it was apparently not created by HighKing, it cannot be considered to be a doppleganger. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (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.

new section: sockpuppet investigation[edit]

I created this in good faith to prevent mistaken identity with HighKing. I do not know HighKing. I only saw his name a few minutes ago and did this good faith attempt.

Now I see that High King has been accused (wrongly) of sockpuppetry. He is being attacked just because of the doppleganger account.

This sockpuppetry hysteria is out of control. No attempt to create a new user to "agree" with HighKing (the definition of a sock) was ever done.

Please do not ruin people's reputation. Close the investigation and keep the doppleganger account closed but no autoblocks, nothing blocked. If you do not, this will be a test case of administrators being to block happy when this is a good faith attempt, nothing sneaky. LowKing (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kicking gift horse in the mouth[edit]

I never heard of HighKing until a few hours ago. HighKing and I wrote totally unrelated comments on different subjects on a talk page. I saw that name and thought "that's a funny name, let's prevent a similar name, LowKing, from ever being used."

If there was bad faith, LowKing might start to edit the same articles as HighKing or make a sarcastic comment. However, there was good faith. I am sorry if I made the doppleganger the wrong way.

There are 3 possible ways to handle this.

Option 1: Be a sneaky administrator vandal and try a sneaky way to damage Wikipedia. Go on a sock crusade and block me to so can claim you killed a "sock". In doing so, you are killing a good faith editor, one that discusses things rationally, creates good articles, etc. By doing so, you aren't actually killing a sock because I am not one; I was doing a good faith effort.

Option 2: End the autoblock so that I can continue finishing the editing project I am on. AGF and recognize that this was a good faith effort misinterpreted.

Option 3: Do nothing, let autoblock expire normally. If you do so, I will have learned the lesson that the way I created the doppleganger wasn't quite the right way.

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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock requests are usually denied. Consider if a very good editor (I think unless there's a controversy that I am unaware of) like User:Sturmvogel 66 saw HighKing's name by accident and did a sloppy, naive attempt at a doppleganger. Would Sturmvogel 66 be ethically compelled to leave Wikipedia because his clumsy doppleganger attempt account was indefinitely blocked? If so, Wikipedia is severely broken. --Note: I am using Sturmvogel 66 as an example, but please do not get him involved-- Please unblock on the condition that this account must never edit again. The unblock reason could be "AGF unblock as a clumsy doppleganger account attempt, this account should never edit again". I am sorry that I did a clumsy doppleganger attempt but it was done with good intentions and done in good faith.

Decline reason:

Please unblock on the condition that this account must never edit again -- um, no. Requiring an account not edit is called "blocking". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:28, 8 June 2010 (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.