User talk:I'm sorry about your trousers

Messages[edit]

Your editing history (requisite 10 edits for autoconfirmation all made within a 15 minute period in November 2011) gives all the appearances of a sockpuppet account. I would suggest you find something more useful to do with your time than templating regulars about the marking of threads on WP:WQA. Using the wrong template was also not a particularly good idea: it looks more like trolling to me. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Amalthea 10:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|Some mistake, shurely? No connection with this person. Please review|decline=CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet. Closedmouth (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]

Note: I have requested review from other checkusers. Amalthea 11:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

I'm sorry about your trousers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Some mistake, shurely? No connection with this person. Please review

Accept reason:

This is clearly not the first account you have here. However, my conclusions may have been in error here and your reasons for creating this account might be legitimate. If so I apologize, and per WP:AGF I have unblocked your account. Amalthea 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- much appreciated. I'm sorry about your trousers (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Echigo mole (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for inappropriate reasons is not allowed. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

CIreland (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2012 (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).

I'm sorry about your trousers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh dear. May I suggest that this is another false positive? I think that a second check will show that. The block messages refers to "violate Wikipedia policies" and I would be happy to avoid doing so in future, but I really would appreciate some guidance on exactly how to do that. I rather thought that it would be a good idea to get some clarity into the whole mess by getting the available evidence into a formal conext, and I'm sorry if that was seen as disruptive. I'm obviously only too happy to avoid being caught up in the whole mess around Echigo mole in future! I'm sorry about your trousers (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Oh dear. Creating another account just a moment after posting this request was less than wise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:52, 21 June 2012 (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 is the second time Echigo mole has played this game: his creation of the SPI pages resulted in his block and, as Static web page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he made a similarly misleading appeal.[1] In this case the block message says: "Abusing multiple accounts: This is Echigo mole." His user talk and email access should be removed. Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2012 (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).

I'm sorry about your trousers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I said before, my second block seems no more accurate than the first. I agree with Jpgordon, I should not have created a second account, I was afraid that this time the mistake would stick, especially with another editor lobbying hard, if mistakenly, for it. I assure you I won't make that mistake again. So, please unblock me and I'll do my best to avoid anything that might get me confused with User:Crouch, Swale or User:Echigo mole.

Decline reason:

Yes, this block is ensuring that nothing you edit/write/touch will have you confused with any of the thousands of other blocked game-playing editors. (Note: you're one of them, even if you are not either of those two). Please find a new hobby - like Simple Wikipedia or backgammon (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 28 June 2012 (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.

The trolling on my talk page[2] and the trolling on an arbcom review page[3] are unfortunately not going to help Echigo mole here. Repeatedly lying on wikipedia is one of the main features of the WP:LTA by Echigo mole. Today he's using an IP in a range previously used by Mikemikev (presumably some free wireless link available in a UK coffee shop). That doesn't explain the conduct in the two sock troll diffs above: Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]