User talk:Six.Mar

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for no apparent reason other than because I asked pertinent questions. I didn't even get the normal courtesy of an explanatory talkpage section. It feels to me like a cover-up. Please convince us that it is not. Six.Mar (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2015 (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.

PhilKnight, you say you declined my request "because it does not address the reason for your block". That is the whole point of my request - there was NO apparent reason given for my block on my talkpage. And the link given in the block message gives the "Permission error" page. Am I being censored, or what? Six.Mar (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned that your behaviour was disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-building project and you are not here to build an encyclopedia. The fact that the only thing you do is repeat the same question over and over at every venue you can think of leads to the conclusion that you are not a "new user", but an established editor trying to evade scrutiny by using a throwaway account to try and make a point about something you felt was handled wrongly without ever saying what exactly you are ranting about, because you are hoping that someone will answer your question in a way you can then use as leverage for some sort of appeal, or in a way to can then quote to prove whatever point you are chasing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!, there is nothing on that page addressed to me. Oh, you think the ip was me! I can assure you it was not. You have mad (a perhaps understandable) mistake. Six.Mar (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!, you are correct though in assuming that I am not a new user. I have been an ip editor for years. Ip editors can't vote though, so I went out of my way to create a "throw-away" account. The questions are pertinent, and especially to users hoping to become CUs, so I see no reason to let them escape without answering.. Please don't censor me. Your mistake was understandable, but on seeing those questions raised, and seeing the way that ip was treated, I felt compelled to try to get the CU applicants to address them. Are you sure you aren't part of an attempted cover-up here? Six.Mar (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only thing you should be doing at all if you have concern over alleged misuse of the CheckUser tool (as seems to be case), is to send an e-mail to the Audit SubCommitee with your concerns. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:16, 12 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is clear from the discussion above that the blocker (User:Salvidrim!) was acting in good faith, but acting on the mistaken assumption that I am the ip who was participating in this discussion. Given that I am not, this block has no basis. Six.Mar (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So it's entirely a coincidence that you, a brand-new editor, linked to a discussion the IP was involved in as your very first edit and proceeded to ask exactly the same questions of multiple people? I think not. Huon (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2015 (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.

Huon, it is more the inevitable result of the domino effect and certainly not a coincidence. Let me reiterate. (1) I am a prolific ip editor. (2) When I tried to edit a few days ago my ip, and in fact the whole range from that ISP was blocked. (3) I looked at the logs and found HJ Mitchell was the culprit. (4) I looked at his logs and contributions and came upon that incredible statement and the fact that he was applying to be a CU, and that Bbb23 was also applying, he a notorious ip editor hater (witnessed by his contribs to the same discussions). (5) I decided to contribute and question them. (6) I had to wait > 100 hours for the 24 hour service to create me an account (user creation was also blocked on my ip). (7) I finally got my account and contributed. Huon, whee is the coincidence there? And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the only one to follow that path, and arrive at the same conclusion. Are you part of this cover up too? Six.Mar (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the answer tho those questions is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Whether someone blocked for sockpuppetry on behavioural evidence is called a "suspected" or a "confirmed" sockpuppet does not make a difference and isn't worth a lengthy debate. The block log should make clear whether it's a CheckUser block, no matter what the template says.

Secondly, let me see if I get this right: You found yourself blocked as part of this block, while investigating the blocking admin happened upon an IP editor in the same IP range as yours that's totally not you, and proceeded to create an account solely for the purpose of raising that other editor's concerns? That sounds ... unlikely. Huon (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huon let me reply. (1) Adding a false tag does make a big difference. To the uninitiated "confirmed" carries more weight than "suspected" and may be understood to mean that the block was justified by some sort of objective evidence. It is unnecessarily inflammatory. If the block was not based on incontrovertible fact then why add the lie? Just be truthful and admit it is only "suspected". (2) Whilst looking at other recent contributions of the blocking admin I came across this one of just a few minutes previous, in reply to another ip in the range. It was that reply that I wanted to query. Is that clear now? Six.Mar (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party appeal[edit]

@Salvidrim!:I strongly support unblocking this user, given he/she was blocked indef without warning. The IP address cited is a range that can be used by many editors, not one. 174.236.32.18 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|given the nature of the block, is it possible to unblock provided that this user is subject to monitoring and;

the user understands any breach of policies will result in this block being reinstated}}

Only the logged user can request an unblock. Deactivating unblock request made by IP. -- GB fan 10:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

NE Ent, in this edit you invoked WP:EVADE, even though I have not been blocked for socking. Please explain why you used that excuse to delete my contribution to that discussion. Six.Mar (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm stupid. Oops. Fixed. Actually, I'm not actually sure why you're blocked. It's very Wiki-22, isn't it? You're "not here" to build the encyclopedia, apparently. What prompted you to create an account simply to comment on the CU appointments? Prior IP editor, alt account, or ...? (Obviously, you don't have to answer, just curious.) NE Ent 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]