Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 16 April 2009

Blocked

Per further CU evidence and analysis of edit times, I've blocked you as a sock of User:UC Bill. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --Sapphic (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after looking into this, you're not entirely crazy Ryan (except perhaps you should be accusing Bill of being my sockpuppet, since I signed up first).. apparently Bill only ever edited while he was at work, and I almost never edit from work, so it was harder than I'd expected to find concurrent edits — but here they are:

• Bill's edit:

My edit 15 minutes later:

• Bill's edit:

My edit 10 minutes later:

Bill's edit 42 minutes later:

My edit 10 minutes later:

Bill's edit 15 minutes later:

Hmm.. that's actually it. I didn't include any of the pairs of edits that were within an hour or two of each other, since I'm figuring that's not close enough, since Sapphic-Bill could have run home from work in the intervening time. This also doesn't include the 6,491 edits I made before Bill even signed up. --Sapphic (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Sapphic to be a sockpuppet of UC Bill, and the "evidence" Ryan has shown on his talk page is less than convincing. Sapphic and UC Bill work together, so even if their edits came from the same IP (or range) this wouldn't be strange. I suggest an unblock (or at least a timed block). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WOAH

Umm Ryan, I just noticed this. Removing other people's comments from my talk page is not cool. Especially when it's about the very issue you're now raising. Methinks maybe you're still pissed off because I called you out about your incorrectly accusing me of violating WP:CANVAS? Is this your revenge? I'd say your behavior is unbefitting an admin.. but unfortunately it seems to be the norm among admins. Whatever. --Sapphic (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd bring this up at WP/ANI (or wherever) but since you've indef blocked me, that isn't possible. How convenient for you. --Sapphic (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Sorry about the multiple unblock requests, but since I'm currently '''indef''' blocked I have no other recourse. I don't understand what Jayron32 is talking about.. if I'm no longer being accused of being a sockpuppet, then what exactly ''am'' I being blocked for? I was uncivil the other day (and in the past) but have ''voluntarily'' refrained from further edits since I was warned. This was an unrelated (and quite clearly unjustified) block, so if you're going to leave me blocked please at least give a better explanation as to why. Addendum: It just occurred to me that Jayron32 might think the block had something to do with the events mentioned in the first set of links — which all took place many months ago and have nothing to do with the current situation (I didn't notice until now that Bill and I were discussing one of our previous run-ins with overzealous admins.. I'd just been looking for matching dates on the edits) so I ask that a different admin conduct a more thorough review. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry about the multiple unblock requests, but since I'm currently '''indef''' blocked I have no other recourse. I don't understand what Jayron32 is talking about.. if I'm no longer being accused of being a sockpuppet, then what exactly ''am'' I being blocked for? I was uncivil the other day (and in the past) but have ''voluntarily'' refrained from further edits since I was warned. This was an unrelated (and quite clearly unjustified) block, so if you're going to leave me blocked please at least give a better explanation as to why. Addendum: It just occurred to me that Jayron32 might think the block had something to do with the events mentioned in the first set of links — which all took place many months ago and have nothing to do with the current situation (I didn't notice until now that Bill and I were discussing one of our previous run-ins with overzealous admins.. I'd just been looking for matching dates on the edits) so I ask that a different admin conduct a more thorough review. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry about the multiple unblock requests, but since I'm currently '''indef''' blocked I have no other recourse. I don't understand what Jayron32 is talking about.. if I'm no longer being accused of being a sockpuppet, then what exactly ''am'' I being blocked for? I was uncivil the other day (and in the past) but have ''voluntarily'' refrained from further edits since I was warned. This was an unrelated (and quite clearly unjustified) block, so if you're going to leave me blocked please at least give a better explanation as to why. Addendum: It just occurred to me that Jayron32 might think the block had something to do with the events mentioned in the first set of links — which all took place many months ago and have nothing to do with the current situation (I didn't notice until now that Bill and I were discussing one of our previous run-ins with overzealous admins.. I'd just been looking for matching dates on the edits) so I ask that a different admin conduct a more thorough review. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

Request reason:

Not sure what Ryan is talking about.. Maybe he means "meatpuppet"? I'd been editing for a little over a year before Bill (who admittedly is a RL friend of mine) even signed up.

Decline reason:

Based on the edits made to this talk page which YOU reference yourself above, it is plainly clear that either you or your friends are screwing around. Regardless of whether this is one person using multiple accounts, or you and your friends colluding together to be disruptive, its all the same. See . Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 16 April 2009 (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.

I find this whole accusation a bit surreal. I am sure there have been more elaborate hoaxes played here on WP, but Ryan somehow managed to see through it. Yes, both have had serious meltdowns recently, and there is some similarity with their editing times (the common window of contributions appears to be between 17:00 and 00:00 UTC). If they are socks of each other, it is a convincing game (to me) the puppetmaster has been playing, including this episode of schizoid-like game-playing. From the tone, it is obvious the two know each other extremely well, but it never occurred to me that they were one and the same. Now we know it was for public consumption. People who know each other that well would not post that to talk pages.

I am not privy to CU information, but based on that same logic User:Jayron32 used and in face of the 'evidence' (and daring to tempt fate), perhaps one could consider blocking Tony1 (talk · contribs) for being a sock/meatpuppet of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), or Tennis expert (talk · contribs) for being a sock/meatpuppet of Locke Cole (talk · contribs). I presume CU is conclusive proof, though. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock