User talk:Ladeda76

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Ladeda76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: When a meatpuppet enters a dispute and is a brand new editor, such as yourself, even with a claim that he or she is a different person, we are allowed to treat them as the same person. Please don't use meatpuppetry, either by creating new accounts or asking your friends who have never edited Wikipedia before until today, to manufacture consensus in a dispute.— Chaser - T 09:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bremskraft, RebelAcademics and I are all graduate students sharing the same house and the same IP. When you block one IP, you block us all.

First, I'm not a "meat puppet." Let me explain further...

As explained earlier, "Bremskraft," "RebelAcademics" and I are graduate students sharing the same IP at home and at the University. After a few (rather lengthy) discussions with eachother regarding the alarming frequency with which our graduate students plagiarize Wikipedia pages, last night we all decided to take a look at what was going on... Now, we have several levels of frustration with undergraduates' tendency to plagiarize Wikipedia pages (and on the surface this has little to do with Wikipedia). First, we find it frustrating that students plagiarize. Second, we find it frustrating that students don't understand what a reliable source is. Third, we find it frustrating that people are going to Wikipedia for the kinds of information that is not readily available outside an academic library, and that this information is oftentimes woefully incorrect. As a result, RebelAcademics and I decided to help Bremskraft when she was receiving significant opposition to making editorial changes. Please see her "talkpage" for her seemingly valid response to the resistance posed by some to edit the "FFL" page. --Ladeda76 21:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, how "RebelAcademics" first made only edits to articles "Bremskraft" had edited, which is how they were identified as a sock puppet. Then this account is created and instead makes a series of quick edits to other unrelated articles before heading over to feminists for life (which is supposedly what prompted you to get this account). I can only see this as a covering of tracks. You are either three people in the dwelling working closely together (in which case, as was stated above, you can be treated as the same person) or you are in fact the same person (which I find infintely more likely.

The "Bremskraft" account's talk page is positively littered with a covering of tracks, including multiple warnings from multiple users on issues ranging from disruptive edits to 3RR violations. Neitherday 22:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't and won't speak from Bremskraft. She is perfectly able to speak for herself. You should reply to her if you have a problem with her. Would it surprise you to know that I study political science? Wouldn't that explain a lot? This is why I edited the Jon Porter page. In fact, RebelAcademics, Bremskraft and I edited the page together. I think you can excuse our working together considering we are relatively new to editing Wikipedia pages. Again, you assume far too much. In fact, you are bordering on paranoia. One would assume that you would be interested in the substance of edits. --Ladeda76 22:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New at Wikipedia, eh? You edit enough to have a "normal" way of editing as you explained here [1]. Neitherday 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I consider myself "new" because I've only edited once or twice before. You are really getting out of control. --Ladeda76 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter (as was stated above by Chaser) whether you are Bremskraft or are here because your roommate asked you to get an account to help them push through their edits - it amounts to much the same thing (just the latter is by proxy). Neitherday 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the tag on my personal page and replace it with my information.--Ladeda76 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Indefinately[edit]

You have been blocked indefinately from editing as a result of Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bremskraft. All the accounts mentioned have been blocked and a proper explanation will be required before any of the accounts will be unblocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Why? How on earth can I "prove" I am who I am? I am not Bremskraft. This is ridiculous. What have I've done nothing to deserve this. You have blocked everyone using the UNLV wireless account. --Ladeda76 00:38, 7 August 2007 (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).

Ladeda76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

131.216.2.83 I am not a "sockpuppet, and i've done nothing to disturb anyone (please check my logs). i don't know how i can prove that i'm not someone else while on a shared ip at the university of nevada, las vegas

Decline reason:

You are missing the point. Please read Neitherday's comments above. — Yamla 01:22, 7 August 2007 (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).

Ladeda76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

131.216.41.16 Yamla, I have fabulous reading comprehension - much higher than average I'd say. What I am accused of is being a "sockpuppet." But I don't have other accounts. I'm my own person with my own thoughts. So, I don't understand. Do you want me to say that I will never talk in real life to anyone who may edit a page on Wikipedia? Please explain. Also, in you're eagerness to block me, you've sucessfully blocked several IP's at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I encourage others to check my logs for any "rudeness," etc. I'm sure there will be others who want to use this IP to edit Wikipedia pages.

Decline reason:

From this response, it is obvious you are a sockpuppet. The way you edit to be unblocked is exactly the same as all of the other accounts listed at the suspected sockpuppets page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 7 August 2007 (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 admins - please read[edit]

Please read the talk page for User:127.0.0.1 and consider unblocking the IP. (I have no comment on the registered users.) Risker 21:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]