Jump to content

User talk:Mpvide66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{helpme}} I am creating this account as my last one, User:Mpvide65 has been blocked for harrassment, vandalism that I did not carry out. I shared an IP address with several others and I insist that I was not the one to harrass any users. I would like to know if it is possible for my previous 1100 edits to be added to this account. I enjoyed editing and find it a pity to be blocked when I am innocent. I have found another IP address and it is on my private laptop with its own wireless internet connection so I won't be interefered with. I hope something can be done, as I had so many things ready to do and only hope I can continue shortly. Thank you. Mpvide66 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Mpvide66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am the same user as the now blocked User:Mpvide65. That account was blocked as it was shared with some persistant vandals. I am now using a different IP address so I will not be disturbed. It is not my fault that other people on my network have vandalised, leaving me to deal with it. Check my contributions and you will find 1100 good edits, with no intent to vandalise at all. I wanted Mpvide66 so I could be as similar as possible to Mpvide65. (PS: If my intentions were purely to vandalise, why would I ask for an account that would be blocked as soon as I actaually did vandalise?).

Decline reason:

Checkuser Thatcher says that the CU results indicate it was you who were making the inappropriate edits. CU data reveals more than just your IP. So your story doesn't cut it. — Jennavecia (Talk) 18:25, 23 September 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.

Unblock 2[edit]

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).

Mpvide66 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know much about checkuser, but I was not the one who carried out thoses edits. I have done nothing wrong. May I please beg for a chance to proove that I didn't do anything wrong, even if it moves using a different username. You will see that I am not the one carrying out that vandalism. This is just not fair. At the end of the day, I am more knowledgable of my own edits that some system here on wikipedia. I know that I have done nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

Checkuser results are pretty reliable, and rely upon a variety of data types. I'm not comfortable unblocking with such strong assurances from the checkuser. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:41, 23 September 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.

I'm dropping a note for Thatcher to comment here. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Korn and I, both checkusers, have indicated repeatedly that this user has, while logged out, made numerous harassing edits of other users. The explanation that it must be someone else using his wireless connection is not credible. The manner by which I know this is not secret; still I am reluctant to explain to a harasser exactly how I know this because he could use the information to avoid being caught the next time. He is entitled to make an appeal by email to arbcom. Thatcher 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not guilty of harrassment. Unless someone used my PC, I can think of no other solution. I have never posted any nasty comments on any talk page at all, and feel this is most unfair. I have done NOTHING. You may not believe me, but I know what I have done. If I rejected again, then I will only come to the conclusion that this encyclopedia has some serious flaws, and that for an innocent editor to be blocked for nothing proves that flaw. Thank you for your time. Mpvide66 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody at your IP address, or even at your computer, is causing big problems here, so we have to block that pipe. You are welcome to file an appeal with the Arbitration Committee. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Post[edit]

THE LAST MESSAGE BY MPVIDE65

I wish to declare that I am abandoning this account. After wrongly being accused of sexually harrassing another user, and after countless efforts to assert my innocence, I have come to the conclusion that this account would be best left to rot. Even if my innocence was proven, rumour would surround my username for evermore. I may try setting up a new account. If I do happen to vandalise (which I won't), please feel free to block that one (although you won't need to). So goodbye.

Please excuse my sarcastic tone. I am not at all fond of any of the administators who have dealt with me recently and hope not to have to deal with you in the future. That will be all. Mpvide66 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC), reporting for User:Mpvide65.[reply]

That's odd. I didn't see that you were accused of sexually harassing anyone. In fact, I sort of assumed that you were just sending insults; I didn't see anyone give specific details about the nature of the harassment you were accused of. Maybe you saw something that I missed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this is not the main account (that is User:Mpvide65), no records of the accusation would be here. Put into a sentence, I was wrongly accused of sexually harrassing User:RyanLupin. I don't care what checkuser says, I am more intelligent that a computer system, so I know my edits. Anyway, I will set up a new account one day, which will have no association with Mpvide65. Mpvide66 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been following the situation with your other account, and I thought that I had read all of the relevant posts. Can you post a link to the place where you were accused of sexual harassment? I truly don't remember it at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism was on User:RyanLupin. From talk pages that I've looked at, some of the edit histories were deleted, so no record remains apart from the correspoding edit removing the harrassment. But I repeat, I did not carry out that vandalism. Mpvide66 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher, it was posted on the administrators' noticeboard. Mpvide66, you're welcome to bring this up with ArbCom, —— RyanLupin • (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page said simply, "harassment." Frankly, my thought was that this user seems surprisingly familiar with the content of the offending edits, considering that they have been removed and weren't clearly described; it would tend to lend a little more strength to the checkuser's assurance that they came from this user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mpvide66&oldid=240772402"