User talk:Korax1214/Unblocked

This is an archive page showing the last version of my talk page when I was finally unblocked after being blocked for several hours (false positive). It is an historical document and for this reason must not be further edited. Thank you.

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

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).

Korax1214 (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 (indeed, the allegation doesn't even mention the other user of which my account is supposedly a clone), and my edits were good-faith edits for exactly the reason stated; nameely that where I come from, "Afro" is a hairstyle, and using it as a combiner is discouraged. I hereby request that the block duration be reduced to 30 days (and restore the Inactive template to my user page while you're at it)

Decline reason:

Making all those page moves before talking with other editors about them first stirs up enough worries on its own but the timing of your contributions, which are so like those of a blocked editor, makes me think it is very likely you're one and the same. Lastly, asking for the block to be shortened to 30 days only further worries me: If you're not him, why settle for a 30 day block at all? You can ask another admin to review this by using the unblock template again but if you abuse it, this page will be protected. — Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (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.

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).

Korax1214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I suspect that any non-small batch of edits is likely to have similar timing to another of about the same size, so the timing doesn't prove anything (there is such a thing as coincidence); and the point I've raised ("whatever happened to taking a worldwide view?") has not been addressed (a term is not "the correct term" if it is wrong in even one place); finally, the request for shortening was for medical reasons, although the "logic" being shown in these admin responses doesn't make me feel inclined to elaborate (what, other than coincidence, gives anyone the idea that I am remotely connected to the unnamed other user?). This sort of thing is one reason why I've always preferred anon edits if possible, and at this rate always will.

Decline reason:

I concur with Gwen Gale; the contribution pattern matches. — Sandstein 20:55, 8 June 2008 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: this user is believe to be a sockpuppet of temporarily blocked User:CanuckAnthropologist. ANI thread. Trebor (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. How can I possibly be a sockpuppet of a Canadian user when my IP clearly belongs to a UK ISP? Don't you people even know how to use WHOIS? -- 217.171.129.71 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard there are one or two Canadians living in London. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|per Trebor above and discussion thereof, clear false positive; since User:CanuckAnthropologist claims to be Canadian, a WHOIS check on his IP will presumably confirm it to belong to a Canadian ISP, whereas mine is of a UK ISP; and the last I checked, these two countries were over 3,000 miles apart at their closest}}

Ref. the above, a bit of digging into the contribs pages turns up [this] edit by User:CanuckAnthropologist, done less than an hour before [this] edit by User:Korax1214, and if (as I suspect) the former turns out to have been done from a Canadian IP, this proves that this block was a false positive, unless perhaps one of these two has some means of transport which can go over 3,000 MPH. -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And comparing those two users' Contribs pages, it's clear that this block is a false positive in any case; User:Korax1214 goes back to 7 April 2007, and User:CanuckAnthropologist only to 23 April 2008; so although it's possible (just not true) that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former, the reverse is not possible (unless this user has a time machine as well as his superfast vehicle already mentioned). -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked; the sockpuppetry conclusion is not well-supported here. Please be more cautious before making page moves in the future, especially on a large scale like that. Mango juice^talk 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still wonder why this editor first asked for the block to be shortened to 30 days? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, it's because of medical problems causing me to behave in ways I normally wouldn't (blood glucose, for example, is known to radically affect mood). -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-requested blocks are almost never granted, the notion being that each editor is responsible for their edits and account. I'm ok for now with the notion that the timing of your edits was unlucky for everyone. As Mangojuice noted, please don't do things like big page moves before talking about it first with other editors. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]