User talk:Bluetalonsteel
Bluetalonsteel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet/imposter of anyone. Also, some research I have done where someone patently claims I am following other users here isn't true- review these allegations- they (socdoc) first changed my edits- which simply changed some of the nomenclature of Elian Gonzalez and Nicki Diaz, to the proper legal definition. Just because someone doesn't like a POV doesn't mean they can/should be blocked. What is the "Abusing multiple accounts" all about? If you are going to accuse me of that, please list them, or do the checkuser process, which cleary will reveal I have no relation to this mentioned troublemaker.
Decline reason:
Requesting checkuser to prove your innocence (with only two days of edits) when you've already been blocked as a result of checkuser? You might as well wear a sock on your head. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2010 (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.
- You are a new user who registered an account 3 days ago, and already you know about the SSP process, and the existence of the checkuser tool? I'm sorry, but that simply does not compute unless there is a very solid explanation for this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
NOt sure what SSP is, but I researched enough about checkuser on these accusers pages where you can find out who's computer is being used correct?
- Why did you execute this revert[1]? And is this revert[2] really a case of reverting "vandalism"? Doc talk 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look at #2, you will see you reverted one of my edits, then I reverted it..
- Heh - wrong Doc! What was the purpose of the first revert (#1)? Have you edited that article as an IP before? It's highly unusual to revert a non-vandalistic edit on an article that this account has clearly not edited before. And, again, why did you term the second revert as "vandalism" in your edit summary when it clearly was not? Doc talk 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit, that I proceeded to revert yours? As far as SM, I lived near there, and some of the material seemed interesting but spuerfulous. Look, cant your check user show who the computer is registered to and then game over? Why the prolonged back and forth
- "Wrong Doc" means I did not revert anything. I imagine she starting reverting you because you, without edit summary or explanation, reverted her first (not the other way around as you claim in your unblock request) a mere 3 minutes after her good-faith edit. No {{citation needed}} tag, no discussion on the article talk page - just a straight revert. As far as a CU goes: "Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt. Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia." So it doesn't look good. Cheers... Doc talk 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, with that said, do you think it is better to start witha clean slate with a brand new account then? Seems like the deck is stacked against me here...
- No one can actually stop you from creating a new account: I'm surprised you haven't already. Are you "allowed" to? Technically not per WP:EVADE. This account is 3 days old with 18 edits - seven of those are reverts of other editors, and six of them are responses here after your block. You've also removed a tag[3] that you're not supposed to per this[1]. Any new account you create would be wise to stay far away from any articles or editors you've encountered thus far, or it will undoubtedly be blocked as a sock puppet. Good luck... Doc talk 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Bluetalonsteel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Where is this checkuser? I believe this is in fact error- no one has ever mentioned "chckuser" as this would be 100% exculpatory in my favor. This whole interaction makes me sratch my head a little bit. A "Checkuser" which never actually happened, along with certain edits of some other person I have never met or heard of before, by a little group of editors who seem to greatly dislike this Skagriver person. Makes me think there are some people who have propiterity turf issues with wikipeida perhaps.
Decline reason:
Per comments and discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2010 (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 am a checkuser. So you know, checkuser cannot be used to prove a negative; that is, if it turns out you don't appear to be related to another account, that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't socking. It could also mean that you simply know how to get around the system. This is why we don't do "exoneration" checkuser requests. As noted above, however, your insistence on getting a check done is suspicious in itself. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
So where do that leave us? I don't understand- I have been told there was a checkuser, then that there was not. Which is it? It is impossible that a checkuser was done, if that was the basis of the original block. Just because I made some edits a couple of people didn't like, means I can just be blocked without defending myself.
- Obvious sockpuppets can be blocked without checkuser. You are an obvious sockpuppet. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)