User talk:99.170.117.163/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:99.170.117.163. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Unblock Request
99.170.117.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not the same editor and not related
Decline reason:
Per WP:DUCK, you're either the same editor or engaging in meatpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
For some reason I have been blocked from editing, and then noticed a new template placed on user page. I am baffled by this decision as the editor in the SPI (Zeke1999) and I are totally unrelated. Other than coincidentally making a few minor edits on two articles where other editor had been making changes, thus being drawn into the subsequent investigation and being falsely accused, I have made no edits relating to that editor at all. We are not the same, not related whatsoever. I believe this seems to or may have been forced by recent requests on Administrators' noticeboard, on JzG's talk page (note the "sock IP" is not really a sock at all, but a totally different editor), an award of a barnstar, followed soon after (2 minutes) by the block. I have made a number of contributions and would like to continue to do so. And, in fact, I was in the process of making an edit when realizing that I had been blocked. :-( Will someone please help with this? –99.170.117.163 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Frank Gaffney was in the news for his commentary on the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident at the time these two editors were working on his page, and Gaffney's page could be reached by checking the histories of some of the editors in the A4D discussion. Two different editors could have come to the page at the same time and come to the same conclusion that the page is a non-encyclopedic coatrack of anti-Gaffney opinions that violates both NPOV and BLP. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Unblock Request on 18 Oct 2015
99.170.117.163 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Block decision was an invalid conclusion and questioning purpose of the block. On September 23, 2015, three minor edits per each of two related articles I made were coincidentally within "a day" of another totally unrelated, i.e. different, editor. I came to a biography page, Frank Gaffney, when either hearing or reading about him elsewhere (e.g. news program, commentary, or news article) or on another Wikipedia article ("clock incident") that I had been helping to improve. An edit was intially made here on the Gaffney article (followed by another on Richard Perle), a second edit on Gaffney, an initial edit on Center for Security Policy (CSP), a third edit at Gaffney, followed by second and third edits on CSP. I later noticed the article had changed (due to seeing not "current" when glancing at my edit history), looked and also made note of an addition to the talk page concering references - I found two and planned to return to mention those. When returning to provide references a few days later, I saw the article had undergone a rollback. Perplexed by this and thus after spending around an hour reviewing changes, noting multiple editors had contributed, no mention or discussion of reasoning for the mass revert (only a questionable edit summary providing any clue - rolled back sanitization by SPAs and IP editors), I decided to undo the rollback. Next, I saw similar had been done on the related CSP article, reviewed changes there and also undid the mass revert of that article. Other than the aforementioned, I have made no other edits to either of those two articles. In retrospect, considering what came afterwards (with the erroneous accusations, false claims on numerous noticeboards against me, time involved in defending against scurrilous commentary about "the IP", well as time involved by others trying to prove a fallacy and potential for resentment developing), I should perhaps instead have mentioned concerns on talk pages for the articles myself and/or to the editor responsible for "rollback" of both pages that removed numerous good faith edits by multiple editors (back to last edits months earlier by same editor doing the reversions), or simply re-added my edits done in good faith (primarily covering style or providing more pertinent wikilinks) – this likely would have been far less tedious than having been drawn into the controversy, due to coincidentally having edited the two articles in question and then being falsely accused of doing or being something I am not ("sockpuppet", "SPA", "meatpuppet" - ad hominems). After much "discussion" over a couple of days (described by some as "walls of text" - which could be interpreted or perceived as "we do not care what you have to say about this" - or more accurately defending against erroneous claims, "evidence", etc.), I commented agreeing with advice given by and on Berean Hunter's talk page, posted a reponse to the latest (at that time) "evidence" (added to Zeke1999 SPI) noting significant differences between posts made by the other editor compared to my own. I had also previously mentioned having noticed where the other editor had made an edit on a page at the same time(!) when I had made an edit on another page. Sure, I suppose it might be possible to accomplish by the same person, editing two different articles at the same time, but far more plausibly is indicative of being different people (which is the truth, btw). Following my last comment at the SPI (October 2), I made no other edits relating to this matter whatsoever, instead concentrating on what I had been trying to do all along, improve articles. Ten days passed, then the issue was brought forth again (October 12 by Cirt as outlined in prior unblock request), apparently having someone (me) continuing to edit was unacceptable (? "IP is still active") or what. Soon after, JzG decided to block me and perhaps would be willing to reconsider (or likely might not mind seeing an unblock?). What is the purpose of the block? Considering no other edits were made by me on the two articles in question, only three minor edits per each and the last (undo of "rollback") on September 26, and then with nothing else posted on this matter at all for ten days until the block decision, what was the urgency or necessity. What exactly was I doing or editing that needed to be stopped by being blocked? Surely it had not been meant as a punitive measure? Looking at my edits made during those ten days and prior to the coincidental edits on the same two articles, I certainly do not see the point; particularly when being fully aware that I am not, and in no way related to nor influenced by, the other editor – I am not a "sock", not a "sockpuppet", not a "meatpuppet" of anyone.
Decline reason:
Procedural note: Your block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
re Talk page template
Please ask the blocking admin, JzG (talk · contribs), about that.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop posting to my talk page. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Cirt: Sorry, I will not post to your talk page about it again. What I meant was the template you had placed when creating my user page and I had incorrectly written "talk page" instead. – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)