User talk:Sparklerainbow87

Hi[edit]

Thanks for your interest in WP:MLP and documentation of all things pony! Princess Derpy (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2012 (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).

Sparklerainbow87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Clearly a sock of somebody" sounds like a rather invalid reason to block a user, especially when all I did was nominate an article for GA status. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the SPI conclusion that "[it is a] struggle to see how these two users could be unrelated" and ... voilá! Badmachine shows up here to defend this account. Not exactly exculpatory. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 6 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.

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmachine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhaercny (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what's the point of informing a blocked user of a spi? the user can't even defend against the claim. -badmachine 09:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user can post their comments here on this talk page with a {{helpme}}, and someone can copy them to the SPI for them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Ok, I guess since we have three related edits over the six months that I've been editing Wikipedia, that automatically makes us sockpuppets. Feel free to checkuser. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied to SPI report -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

...[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).

Sparklerainbow87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't want to be rude about this, but it is absurd to accuse me of being another user when there was "no definitive technical evidence". Furthermore, this block was only made because I edited a controversial page and was blocked by an admin personally involved with said content. And above all, whatever happened to assume good faith? Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"No definitive technical evidence" is misleading: there was technical evidence. The checkuser indicated that the technical evidence on its own was inconclusive, but that, taken in conjunction with other evidence, it made a convincing case. It is also a misrepresentation to state that the block "was only made because [you] edited a controversial page". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 7 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.

ok[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).

Sparklerainbow87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was made immediately after I nominated Gay Nigger Association of America for good article status, which I feel it deserves to due the endless poking and prodding by admins to assure that the controversial content meets WP standards. I was then blocked by User:Ironholds for "Clearly a sock of somebody" despite there being no reason or evidence at the time (which still holds true now). Ironholds seems to be one of the favorite targets of the GNAA based off of reading their website (I am not a GNAA member, nor do I associate with any). As for User:Badmachine, my only interactions with him have been within the scope of Wikipedia MLP and Furry articles that i signed up to improve in the first place, I'm sure thousands of Wikipedians share common interests. I did however recognize his name at AN/I during his block and vouched for him as an uninvolved party.

The SPI was closed ridiculously quickly, once again by Ironholds, who chose to block upon inconclusive evidence. This is when I noticed there was a GNAA userbox on Badmachine's page. Once more, I get the feeling that Ironholds is letting his grudge get the best of him, and taking it out on two innocent users (or at least I feel myself to be innocent, if Badmachine truly is a GNAA member I would suspect that something is happening behind closed doors). Basically,

Technical evidence did not prove anything
It's not uncommon for two people to share similar interests on the internet and briefly acquaint from doing so
Both Ironholds' decision to block and quickly close the unconvincing SPI case is seemingly due to his personal issues with the GNAA, which is when this entire issue started
Badmachine wasn't brought into the case until after my block, presumingly because "Clearly a sock of somebody" had to be justified

Decline reason:

Declined per discussion in IRC unblock channel. In light of behavioural and technical evidence, two CheckUsers were satisfied that this block was justified. WilliamH (talk) 00:58, 11 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.

Indeed, I'm an evil satanist who bites the heads off kittens and wants nothing more than to hunt the GNAA down (which is funny, because as I understand it we have a lot of hobbies in common). Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your position so delicately. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More neutrally; the GNAA went after me one, that I know of, at least 6 months ago. I haven't paid attention since then or seen anything new, nor have I cared. If I had some deep desire to hunt anyone associated with the GNAA down, I wouldn't have been the one who concluded their article should be restored. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin-help}} Placing this here because it has been over 24 hours and I lack a response from an uninvolved administrator. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry...[edit]

I know you're not a sock of badmachine. Egg Centri c 16:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]