Jump to content

User talk:Nillarse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspected Socks

[edit]

This is easier to read with bullet points:

See also discussion of this user here. --Boston (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

[edit]

You're a sock. You can stay blocked until you decide you want to talk William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Let me guess, you and this other editor you have teamed up with claim I'm a "sock" but did Wiki check to see if I was indeed a sockpuppet or did you just decide to block me on our own when your friend asked? Also talk to you about what? If you wanted to talk then you would have contacted me to and not jump to conclusion or allow yourself to be used by someone to do their bidding. Just because you are an admin does not mean you can do whatever you want. It's a shame I didn't know Wiki was about being bullied into accepting someone’s opinion on a subject especially when there is no evidence or historical account or source to even back it up. Luckily there more sensible administrator out there. Nillarse (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T BOTHER TRYING TO REASON WITH FOOLS ITS SIMPLE CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.72.18 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought there were greater minds on wiki didn't think it was a power trip where editors got lap-dogs to do their work for them, I could have just done that but didn't feel the need to do it since I knew I did nothing wrong in the 1st place, but I guess I might have to Nillarse (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Was wrongfulling acused of being a sock puppet (some thing that was not verified by wiki) by the Admin who blocked my account and his editor "friend" an editor named boston who had been making changes to the article rice and beans and adding false and non citated information with no historical account to back up. The editor boston also got another editor jheiv to make changes for him. luckily jheiv found out he was being used admitted that he did not know about the subject on the artiles talk page and stoped editing and reverted it back to the edit I made. The Admin is also claiming that I goot into an edit war which is true but it was with his friend "boston" so why isn't boston suspended? The editor boston and the admin William connolley need to be looked at It doesn't make sense that this Admin always back up that editor's claims. There is absolutely no reason for me my account to be suspended. just because someone makes an edit back to something someone else said does not mean that person is a sock. Also shouldn't it be reported and looked into? can an admin who has teamed up with another editor aganist me just claim i'm a sock and suspended me? Why wasn't it reported so Wiki can trace the I.P adresses to determine of I have multi accounts. Which I don't. I have nothing to hid and should not be suspended just because I stood up to some editor who wants to bully people into accepting his opinions Nillarse (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

{unblock reviewed|1=Was wrongfulling acused of being a sock puppet (some thing that was not reported to or verified by wiki) by the admin who blocked my account William M. Connolley and his editor friend boston who had been making changes to the article rice and beans getting into edit wars and adding false and non citated information. The editor boston who got this admin to block me also got another editor jheiv to make changes for him. luckily jheiv found out he was being used admitted that he did not know about the subject on the artiles talk page and stoped editing. the editor boston and the admin William connolley need to be looked at. There is absolutely no reason for my account to be suspended.|decline=WP:NOTTHEM, as well as failure to assume good faith and making the classic sockpuppet argument of "why wasn't this checkusered"? Well, we don't need checkuser when we've got these edit histories. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Was wrongfulling acused of being a sock puppet (some thing that was not verified by wiki) by an admin and his editor who blocked my account and his editor friend boston who is had been making changes to the article rice and beans and adding false and non citated information. The editor boston who got this admin to block me also got another editor jhieves to make changes for him. luckily jhieves found out he was being used admitted that he did not know about the subject on the artiles talk page and stoped editing. the editor boston and the admin William connolley need to be looked at. There is absolutely no reason for me my account to be suspended. Asked for block to be looked at Admin Daniel Case claim I'm making classic "sock puppet arguement" about my account not being reported to wiki to be verified that I was indeed a sockpuppet. because he saw the edit history. just because someone makes an edit back to something someone else said does not mean that person is a sock. And shouldn't it be reported and looked into? can an admin who has teamed up with another editor aganist me just claim i'm a sock and suspended me? Why wasn't it reported so Wiki can trace the I.P adresses to determine of I have multi accounts. Which I don't. I have nothing to hid and should not be suspended just because I stood up to some editor who wants to bully people into accepting his opinions

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts: User:ProfXY, User:Trublume, plus IP editing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 31 March 2009 (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.



The editor boston who got the Admin friend to suspend my account is now claiming my account is 3 days old (now he changed it to a month). What is the reason for the lies? Clearly my account has been open for months now. It doesn't make sense if I was truly a sock puppet why wasn't it reported to wiki so, it should have been proven and properly dealt with. Instead of his editor friend just abusing his power to block me. All these accounts should be looked at, and the I.P addresses should be traced. I only have one account which is this one and I have nothing to hid. I think Boston and his editor friend should be looked into.Nillarse (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nillarse&oldid=1068592173"