User talk:Sjbraden
Sjbraden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I humbly request that an administrator unblock my account. Nishkid64 blocked my accountant because he claims it is a sock puppet for DavidYork. This is completely untrue. Either DavidYork hijacked my IP or NishKid64 blocked the wrong person. I created my account about a month ago and then added one edit to a discussion page that day. I have not even logged on again since that day until today, and I found that I been improperly blocked. I kindly request that my block be removed. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Decline reason:
A new account appears on a talk page for an article known to be infested with David York socks, makes one fairly incivil post, and is then found to be linked to DY71 by a checkuser? I don't think there's any reason not to decline this request. Black Kite 22:15, 29 April 2009 (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.
Sjbraden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
With all due respect, my post was not uncivil. It was in response to a blatant example of censorship on a wikidicussion page. It is painfully obvious that anyone that disagrees with the tone/facts of the article is immediately labled a sock puppet and has their comment censored. Up until that point in time, I never felt the need to create an account on wikipedia. But after viewing this page, I just felt that this kind of censorship was unacceptable in a forum that is suppose to be objective. I humbly request that an admin check the CheckUser logs to see if the person who banned me actually ran a Checkuser test on me. Further, I humbly request that an admin run a checkuser on me. I have never once created an account before on wikipedia, and it is therefore impossible for me to be a sock puppet. In my opinion, I was banned merely because I created an account and posted a message on a discussion page that may be infested with sock puppets. I feel as if the "checkuser" test comment was meant to substantiate an otherwise bogus banning of someone on censorship grounds. I feel that the sock puppet paranoia on that page does nothing but foster censorship and subjectivity. If there is anything I can do to help prove that I am not a sock puppet, I will be more than happy to comply. Thank you for your time, I hope this appeal is successful Sjbraden (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Sjbraden
Decline reason:
Yes, it is painfully obvious that you are a sockpuppet. I'm hesitant to even explain why this is so clear to the admins, because you will only use this information to be a more effective sockpuppeteer in the future. I will not waste Nishkid's time by asking if he ran Checkuser: either he did and it's confirmed, or he didn't because he agrees with me that this case is obvious enough to not require a check. Mangojuicetalk 15:32, 5 May 2009 (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.
.
Sjbraden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This will be my last attempt at unblocking my account. I have been nice and courteous in my previous two requests and I thank the admins for responding back in a timely fashion. In each request, I have explained that there is some mistake about my account being a sock puppet and that my comment was only directed at what I felt was censorship on wikipedia. I apologize for my comment if it was disrespectful, and I will not make similar comments in the future, but any allegation that I am a sock puppet is completely erroneous. It is very discouraging to keep geeting the same unexplained answers from admins when you know the allegtions are incorrect. Despite the fact that I have been respectful and curteous in this unblocking process, I receieve comments such as "I'm hesitant to even explain why this is so clear to the admins, because you will only use this information to be a more effective sockpuppeteer in the future." Comments like this beg the question what can I do to prove that I am not a sock puppet? Better question, how can anyone who has been blocked by an admin for a sock puppet allegation clear their name? It seems to me that appealing a block based on sock puppet allegations is virtually impossible. How can I argue that the block was invalid if I don't have access to the evidence? Moreover, what can I do when the admins flat refuse to check the CheckUser logs or even run a Checkuser on me to see if the block was warranted in the first place? There is absolutely nothing I can do, despite the fact that I have been wrongfully blocked. Where is the fairness? And the cold and uninformative admin reponses do nothing but add to the frustration. It's scary to know that there are probably many more users like me who have been wrongfully blocked without any hope of recourse. What would you do if you were in my shoes? I would even be willing to discuss this over the phone to better facilitate communication if necessary. Again, this will be my last attempt to unblock through this method. I feel that I have exhausted every possible thing I could do to clear my name in the nicest possible manner. Thank you for taking the time to read this request.Sjbraden (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Scott
Decline reason:
I tried hard, but I couldn't think of any plausible way that this would be the first edit of a new user. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 5 May 2009 (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.
- As for "clearing your name," see User:Mangojuice/A letter to sockpuppets. Specifically on using Checkuser, note that at WP:RFCU, Checkuser requests to "prove your innocence" are specifically disallowed. Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
~~With all due repsect, that policy is ridiculous and would obviously invite abuse, censorship, and lunatic paranoia. Secondly, why does wikipedia even allow for sock puppet allegation blocks to be appealed if there is no hope of getting a reverse? It seems like a worthless formality. The obvious danger (which is what happened to me) is that an ultra paranoid admin may start arbitrarily blocking contributors as sock puppets to ensure that the wikipage does not get altered from what he personally wants it to say. The block can't be appealed and admins are reluctant to check to the CheckUser logs are run a Checkuser list--without any explanation as to why that is the policy. A pathetic policy like this does nothing but promote skewed editing of wikipages. Thank you for your time and I hope you can respect my opinion on this manner.~~Scott
- I'm a little puzzled. According to your block log, User:Nishkid64 unblocked you on May 5. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)