User talk:Sonic2030

Sonic2030 Welcome!

Hello, Sonic2030, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Wesley Snipes have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! User talk:Unfriend12 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page.

Stay off my talk page. You have not shown that you understand the basic wp:pillars of Wikipedia. Again, see wp:BLP. Consider joining the discussion at wp:BLPN for the Wesley Snipes article.User talk:Unfriend12 22:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic2030, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sonic2030! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2012 (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).

Sonic2030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure why X! blocked me without even looking, "fairly obvious", let alone just doing a basic IP search. The IP 96.54.183.71 is a Canadian IP address for shawcable, a Canadian company. I am an American and do not even live near Canada. Can you please unblock me and also have someone review all of X!’s blocks and other actions as moderator. Just stating “fairly obvious” when its anything but obvious. Thanks --Sonic2030 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, your "attitude" makes it fairly obvious that you do not subscribe to the community nature of this project. As you will already have read in WP:GAB and WP:AAB, unblock requests that attack the blocking admin or other editors will be declined quickly. Your willingness to make such attacks will be detrimental in any future unblock request. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 18 December 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.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonic2030

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).

Sonic2030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me as the Mod who did it was really nice and I thank him for... Really how can I defend myself in this type of case without saying what he did was at best lazy? I'm not attacking him I'm pointing out the obvious. Really what was I suppoosed to say? --Sonic2030 (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are supposed to address the reason for your block, which is editing using multiple accounts (Named account and IP, making same edits). Neither sarcasm nor criticism of the blocking admin will help you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:56, 18 December 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.

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).

Sonic2030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not and was not editing from the 95.xx Canada IP, It was not me and I was not given a chance to even defend myself or even notice on my talk page. Thanks

Decline reason:

It pains me to flat out say, "I don't believe you", but when an editor ceases edit warring after being warned, only for an IP editor to appear 20 minutes later adding the exact same information, alarm bells go off for any admin. I can't honestly say that I would have acted any differently to X!, the similarity is just to great. If the appearance of the Canadian IP restoring your edits is genuinely a coincidence, then I am deeply sorry, but such coincidences are so statistically unlikely that disbelieving your claim is, I'm sad to say, the only logical response. I will, however, ask if a Checkuser would be willing to investigate, to confirm or deny the legitimacy of the block. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 18 December 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.

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).

Sonic2030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so lack of proof is proof enough to block someone? And what Mod "warned" me? There was not even a listing that I was blocked on my Talk page, let alone having someone else make a edit to the same page I did is proof to block is a joke. Yes as I already stated CHECK THE IPs!!!! I am not hiding anything.

Decline reason:

What do you consider a lack of proof? The behaviorial evidence is pretty compelling. I'm revoking your talk page access, feel free to use WP:UTRS for further requests but be warned that even it will not help you if you will continue denying the obvious. Max Semenik (talk) 14:53, 18 December 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.

As stated above, I have requested that a checkuser (Elockid) investigate the IPs involved. Equally as stated above, yes, an anonymous editor making the exact same edits twenty minutes after a warning has been issued is sufficient grounds for a block. You are not helping your case by filing further unblock requests and shouting; if anything, you are making it increasingly likely that your block will be extended to indefinite. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this message from DeltaQuad, checkuser shows that the relationship between this account and the Canadian IP mentioned above is

Inconclusive. Based on a UTRS request from Sonic2030, I am reinstating talkpage access to allow another unblock request here in light of this information. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 19 December 2012 (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).

Sonic2030 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I have said I am not the IP and did not double/IP edit, let alone was not even near a computer at the time. Not sure what else to say as its not me and as said it does not match. Thank you Yunshui for looking into it and updating.

Decline reason:

CheckUser has established that you have been socking via proxies. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:06, 22 December 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.

Are you aware of any relationship between yourself and HelferLad? To avoid any suggestion of subterfuge, I ask because you, that user and the IP already mentioned have all made exactly the same edits to the Salvation army article.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Only postings I have done in the last several days has been here. I did file a appeal by the appeal system that someone above had a link to. So no I am me and me only. So anybody editing something I did I am guilty of their sins as well? I don't mean it rudly, but really how can I defend myself against something I can't defend other than... no? If I went to the library and posted as a IP and did the same edit as you would you be happy being banned and told "I don't believe you"? I called out a editor who was removing large parts of the Salvations page without talk and parts that have a dozen+ Cit's and he gets the Mods to ban me so he can keep editing when I called him out for doing worse. So again no I am not Heferlad, Canada IP, or anyone else. --Sonic2030 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you to do that, it would arouse suspicion, but probably wouldn't lead to Anthony being blocked right away. The difference in your case is that you were already blocked when you/the IP/the Tooth Fairy made the same edits. As almost anyone familiar with the Internet is aware, IP addresses prove nothing. That's why we have Checkuser. But even with an inconclusive result, our policies allow us to block based on similar behavior alone, subject to the sort of review this is getting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tooth Fairy"? No I am not the Tooth Fairy, helferlad, canada ip, etc... This is the only account I have edited as. So no I did not edit when I was blocked other than this page. /rollseyes --Sonic2030 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"/rollseyes"? Nice to see you're taking this opportunity to become unblocked so seriously (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]