| Revision as of 03:54, 11 February 2008 editDeskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:29, 11 February 2008 edit undoNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Calling someone a POV-pusher is considered offensive unless it can be properly referenced. I made ONE edit in the article on ], and I provided NPOV references to my addition directly from Darwin's letters. Then, all of my other contributions were on the Talk pages. As it turns out, Unprovoked reversed my addition to the article, and Dr88 and HDOlivaw provided additional comments against my contribution. If these 3 people are the same person, my contributions to wikipedia has suffered from this gang of one. When it seemed that I was out-numbered, I respectfully stepped away. I have been a gentleman editor here...not a POV-pusher. I wish Dave Souza would acknowledge the strong anti-homeopathy bias that he has had in making his above statement and in vast majority of his edits. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | Calling someone a POV-pusher is considered offensive unless it can be properly referenced. I made ONE edit in the article on ], and I provided NPOV references to my addition directly from Darwin's letters. Then, all of my other contributions were on the Talk pages. As it turns out, Unprovoked reversed my addition to the article, and Dr88 and HDOlivaw provided additional comments against my contribution. If these 3 people are the same person, my contributions to wikipedia has suffered from this gang of one. When it seemed that I was out-numbered, I respectfully stepped away. I have been a gentleman editor here...not a POV-pusher. I wish Dave Souza would acknowledge the strong anti-homeopathy bias that he has had in making his above statement and in vast majority of his edits. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :The underlying IP is not blocked. I still eagerly await the response of RDOlivaw to the question that I asked. --] <small>]</small> 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | :The underlying IP is not blocked. I still eagerly await the response of RDOlivaw to the question that I asked. --] <small>]</small> 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Maybe they know one another, and don't want to give that information out to the public? -- ] 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:29, 11 February 2008
 | This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Unprovoked (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |  |
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
RDOlivaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not know user Unprovoked. This is my only account. I edit through a University proxy in Grenoble, and using city wi-fi (in parks here) as I do not yet have internet in my new flat. I am currently editing from a Nottingham University proxy as I am visiting there. Please unblock me and the IP address at Nottingham; feel free to block Unprovoked though I have no idea who they are and I have no access to that account. I am also not Dr88, although I assume it must be someone also in Grenoble. They say they work for the CEA whereas I work at the INPG for CNRS. If he wants to defend himself or ask for an unblock he can, but I'm not going to defend him. All my edits to the mainspace have been made in good faith, and I will avoid Homeopathy for the a while if that's any help. I did get rather involved with Dana Ullman, but he did try and bait me a number of times. I have emailed LaraLove earlier today and have not yet received a reply (I assume she is away or busy). Basically this is my main account, please feel free to block the others and they can defend themselves (although I broadly supported Dr88s main space edits, I have no knowledge of Unprovoked) and please unblock the proxy through which I am editing as this is a tempoary access point for me and I feel bad for the people here that will use the proxy from tomorrow for their work
Decline reason:
there is not enough evidence to support unblocking at this time. — slakr 02:46, 11 February 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- For the admin who reviews this, please first talk to User:Thatcher or User:Deskana. Checkuser evidence shows that this user and user User:DrEightyEight are connected to the account User:Unprovoked and on February 1, 2008 they edited from the same IP address, alternating, in a matter of minutes which puts them on the same computer. Lara❤Love 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how you and DrEightyEight edited from the same IP within minutes of each other. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- See Note descr: Proxad / Free SAS. descr: Static IP address (Freebox). To the best of my knowledge the IP is for Freebox: the modem has the static IP -- multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. •Jim62sch• 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't account for all the details, which is why I invited comment from RDOlivaw. --Deskana (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- In the interim, LaraLove seems to have indefblocked one or two university networds, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". Regarding details, have diffs of alleged disruption been made public? My interactions with RDOlivaw found him constructive and helpful. Perhaps it should be noted that he made useful edits to Charles Darwin in the aftermath of POV pushing by Dana Ullman – is this a spin off from homeopathy arguments? .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't account for all the details, which is why I invited comment from RDOlivaw. --Deskana (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- See Note descr: Proxad / Free SAS. descr: Static IP address (Freebox). To the best of my knowledge the IP is for Freebox: the modem has the static IP -- multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. •Jim62sch• 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how you and DrEightyEight edited from the same IP within minutes of each other. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone a POV-pusher is considered offensive unless it can be properly referenced. I made ONE edit in the article on Charles Darwin, and I provided NPOV references to my addition directly from Darwin's letters. Then, all of my other contributions were on the Talk pages. As it turns out, Unprovoked reversed my addition to the article, and Dr88 and HDOlivaw provided additional comments against my contribution. If these 3 people are the same person, my contributions to wikipedia has suffered from this gang of one. When it seemed that I was out-numbered, I respectfully stepped away. I have been a gentleman editor here...not a POV-pusher. I wish Dave Souza would acknowledge the strong anti-homeopathy bias that he has had in making his above statement and in vast majority of his edits. Dana Ullman 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The underlying IP is not blocked. I still eagerly await the response of RDOlivaw to the question that I asked. --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe they know one another, and don't want to give that information out to the public? -- Ned Scott 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)