User talk:Makoshack/Archive2

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14 Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

You should be aware that this mediation is in progress.--Fahrenheit451 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't, thank you. Makoshack 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it now and decided not to involve myself into this ridiculous game. Makoshack 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

205.227.165.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS

Blocking administrator: Thatcher131 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 20:10, 19 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

What is happening here??? I neither am nor operate "sock puppets". Thatcher131, please get fully informed about this shared IP before you block out hundreds of people. More information might be located [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS here. I had this arbitrary interference in user rights earlier and if there is a user to block for violation of Wikipedia rules it should be done on the user name and not on a shared IP. It seems that you made yourself a party of heavy POV-pushing and I invite you to have a thorough look. Thank you. Makoshack 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC) (posted again, I had been using the wrong format)

Decline reason:

The evidence that you are a sockpuppet of COFS seems pretty conclusive to me. Checkuser shows that you are the same, your similar editing interests and priorities confirm it. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been trying to put up a RFC on "user conduct" (in this case my own) but was denied so due to the above arbitrary block. I will wait a few hours so that this situation can be properly resolved. Makoshack 20:15, 19 October 2007. Three hours later: Thanks for the response (why do I get responses from a different Admin each time???). I am however not going to sit here and give in to some electronic robots who have determined "for me" that I am somebody else. That is really scary. All this "checkuser" finds out is an IP address and as I even state on the shared IP's talk page since months, yes, I am using this access from time to time (e.g. right now). But this does not mean I am the same as hundreds of other people with the same IP. I mean, isn't that logical? What can I do to get this block lifted? Makoshack 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC). Additional reference to look at here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#COFS_indef_blocked[reply]

Decline reason:

The conclusion that you are a sockpuppet of COFS is based on compelling evidence; what admins get from checkusers is only there as a confirmation of suspicion. In this case your editing pattern is conclusive. I will protect this page because you should not make a further unblock request after the first is declined. Sam Blacketer 22:39, 19 October 2007 (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.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See below Request handled by: Thatcher131 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking and modification of the probation

Both Maksoshack and Misou have asked to be unblocked, as apparently there was an earlier acceptance of a claim that they were different people, although editing from a shared IP address. The problem with editing from a shared IP address (see checkuser) is that it is impossible for us to tell if multiple accounts with similar interests are really separate people or not. When one account edits disruptively, another account could be a different person who behaves more reasonably, or it could be a calculated good cop/bad cop strategy by one person, or two people coordinating their efforts, both of which are not allowed. Likewise, if one editor is blocked or banned, it is impossible to tell whether the other accounts are being used to circumvent the block or ban, either by one person using multiple accounts (sock puppets), or through multiple people coordinating their edits (sometimes called meat-puppetry). The alternative to blocking all but one account is to apply the same remedies, blocks and bans to all the accounts, which is consistent with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. If one account edits disruptively and is banned or blocked, the same ban or block will apply to all the accounts. It appears that CSI LA (talk · contribs) and Grrrilla (talk · contribs) are inactive for the time being, so this notice applies to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs) and Makoshack (talk · contribs). All for one and one for all. If one of you is blocked or banned for any reason, that block or ban will be applied to all of you. For the time being, Shutterbug is banned from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days from October 2, so that topic ban applies to Makoshack and Misou as well. You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments. I will withdraw the 30-day extension of the topic ban, since you were not previously notified that bans applied to one apply to all. I hope this works out, and you should also be on notice that if there are repeated violations someone will eventually decide to stop accepting the shared account explanation. Good luck. Thatcher131 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to being subject to penalties of people I have not even met nor talked to, nor do I have means to restrain or control them. Further I doubt that any topic ban can actually be issued by you and do not feel affected by it, accordingly. Otherwise, thank you for listening and keep up the good work! Makoshack 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Please feel free to contribute positive assessments of Hubbard's personality by public Scientologists, Freezoners, and non-Scientologists to the draft section at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox. As I read Thatcher131's statement, "You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments.", you are welcome to do so though if you have any doubts you might want to clarify first. --Justanother 13:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister

Dunno if we've met. What do you think about this shoot'em all logic? Misou 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to follow, I agree. Makoshack 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ban has been reinstated

Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am abroad right now and had not actually planned to edit in Wikipedia for the time being. But your behavior was brought to my attention. This demands a sortout and clarification. Would you please be so kind and let me know what rules you are applying? Makoshack 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here. Makoshack 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]