User talk:Stemcellbaby

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).

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

Request reason:

First I would like to apologize to Amalthea for creating the account 'Stemcellbaby2' as a means to communicate with him - I was not 'evading' a ban, I simply didn't know how to access this block appeal function. I have been blocked for block evasion/sockpuppetry, the SPI page says there must be "evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner" - this is the only account I have used (other than Stemcellbaby2) and I have made no disruptive edits. I understand that the account I requested to usurp was banned, however I don't feel this proves I am them - wouldn't it be unusual to tempt fate by usurping the banned account, surely the purpose of sock puppets is to disguise the fact that accounts are related! I hope WP:AGF supports my case.

Decline reason:

Sorry, this is a checkuser block, and a review of the contributions supports that analysis. Kuru (talk) 20:07, 11 November 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.

WP:AGF might, WP:Checkuser didn't. Amalthea 18:57, 11 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand. Are you informing me that a 'Checkuser' has confirmed I am a sockpuppet? If so why was there no SPI? If this is the result of a checkuser then I believe there has been some mistake, and I hope you will consider WP:RRULE - specifically "Is the action "appropriate" and reasonable in light of the editor's tendancies and proclivities?", I haven't caused any disruption yet I am receiving so much negative attention! I feel that the rigid enforcement of these rules is actually destructive - consider WP:BURO: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies". WP:BP also states "[Blocks] are not intended for use...where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern" - I don't think I have done anything which could be considered 'concerning'.

Decline reason:

You are clearly making the same types of defensive remarks as the accounts you have used beforehand; we're not fooled. –MuZemike 01:28, 13 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

MuZemike - am I correct in believing there is no 'hard' evidence proving your accusations to be true? It seems your only justification for this block is based on pseudo-criminal profiling, I didn't even get a fair trial. I haven't looked at the 'defensive remarks' on the other accounts but I doubt there is much variation between unblock requests. And besides, your missing my point - I haven't done anything wrong. Why am I being 'blocked' when I haven't caused any problems? I've had a good look at Wikipedia's blocking policy/rules and I can't see how you can justify blocking me when I haven't caused any problems. I'm disappointed that despite making constructive edits and avoiding conflict I have been blocked without any evidence against me, I will cooperate with you in whatever way possible to prove my innocence - is it advisable to contact the Arbitration Committee? Please consider that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I want to remain part of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You are not correct in assuming there is no hard evidence - there is. You were blocked for evading a block on your main account. Further misuse of the unblock template will lead your ability to edit this page being removed. TN X Man 14:51, 15 November 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.

I've disabled your ability to edit this page. Your situation has been explained by three different Checkusers. If you'd like to request unblocking, please email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. TN X Man 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]