User talk:CrawlBacker

Hello

Please talk to me. --CrawlBacker (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedians who have categorized other Wikipedians

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "attack" to which you are alluding? CrawlBacker (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Incredible. While I was away I was blocked. I don't see any accusation, investigation or discussion. How can this be? The log entry says "Abusing multiple accounts". Which accounts? Cite the abuse.

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock. TN X Man 18:37, 14 May 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.

CrawlBacker (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "Checkuser" tool is clearly bollocks if the conclusion from using it is "confirmed sock" [of defacto apparently from edits to my user page]. Where is the use of that tool recorded, and how do I get a copy of the evidence produced by it? CrawlBacker (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious category deletion

The category I create has been deleted too and I can't find out why! What is going on? CrawlBacker (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sure that if there was any evidence to support the "sock" allegation an admin would delight in presenting it. As there has been none forthcoming, other than the lame "Checkuser confirmed sock", that would tend to support my assertion that there is none. With no evidence there is no case. CrawlBacker (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence aside, your editing history is almost certainly that of an editor who knows the system. An optimist on the run! 18:22, 15 May 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.

To Optimist: a new account doesn't necessarily imply a new user, and I never claimed to be new to Wikipedia. In case you hadn't realised, there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project. So with the unsupportable allegation based on a personal interpretation of "Checkuser" output set aside, and with no evidence of any wrongdoing forthcoming, please unblock me. CrawlBacker (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you enjoy stalking other editors, like you have with 94.197.49.214 (talk · contribs) and 94.197.n1.n2 (talk · contribs)? --MuZemike 18:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't stalked 94.197.49.214 or 94.197.n1.n2. What leads you to make that ridiculous implication? CrawlBacker (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And while I am at it, if you are not a sock puppet as you say, then how did you know exactly what to say here and here? --MuZemike 18:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that one needs to be a sock puppet to ask such an informed question? CrawlBacker (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare some comments, shall we?

User:DeFacto:

User:94.197.n1.n2:

A tendentious editor made an unfounded allegation...without being given the chance to defend myself or dispute the crazy allegations made.

User:DaftEco:

With no evidence except for what I wrote on DeFacto's talk page and on the ANI.

User:94.197.146.76

That is a wholly disingenuous allegation.

User:CrawlBacker

With regards to your dismissal of CU results:

User:94.197.n1.n2:

User:CrawlBacker:

That "Checkuser" tool is clearly bollocks if the conclusion from using it is "confirmed sock".

You know you're not fooling us one bit, correct? --MuZemike 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Compare some comments"? What do you think that shows? That we all speak English? Can you see a pattern or some other common traits? I don't know whether the other users you mention are the same person or not, and it certainly isn't obvious to me from the comments. What I do know however, is that I am neither of them. If you think you can see something from the comments you quote please descibe it so we can all enjoy it. CrawlBacker (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Do I need to raise one of these to get an admin rsponse? This is a copy of my answer to the previous refusal to unblock...

A new account doesn't necessarily imply a new user, and I never claimed to be new to Wikipedia. In case you hadn't realised, there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project. So with the unsupportable allegation based on a personal interpretation of "Checkuser" output set aside, and with no evidence of any wrongdoing forthcoming, please unblock me. CrawlBacker (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Decline. Nothing user has presented is compelling enough, and I trust Tnxman307's judgement as an experienced checkuser. Lacking the checkuser tools myself, if the user really wants to pursue the unblock then the BASC is the way to go since they can confirm checkuser findings. Syrthiss (talk) 16:57, 16 May 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.

I've revoked this user's talk page access -that's quite enough trolling. They're welcome to appeal to WP:BASC if they'd like. I'll leave the unblock request open -if another admin feels I've erred, they're welcome to a) restore talk page access or b) unblock or both. I would ask, though, that if the reviewing admin does decide on b), that they ask another CU to review first. TN X Man 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: I declined the unblock request. As the third CheckUser to review this request, the data doesn't leave anything to the imagination. WilliamH (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]