Misplaced Pages

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]) in which I resulted the victim of collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low as sockpuppetry. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with another user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version (both of them were blocked for it and ). That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the weak, if not nonexistent, evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the editor who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. The user never notified me of the pending sockpuppet case he had issued, nor was I afforded the opportunity to present this and other evidence to my defense. , that editor in the DRN stated: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past '''perceived''' '' wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::This editor proceeded to try and get me blocked anyway, and with very weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. I should state that I do not feel comfortable with that user to overlook and transform the La Luz del Mundo page, especially not while I am blocked. Unlike other admins or senior editors who have fairly contributed to that page in the past, I feel that this user at any point may have too much of an impartial interest to self-designate themselves to edit and overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]) in which I resulted the victim of collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low as sockpuppetry. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with another user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version (both of them were blocked for it and ). That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the weak, if not nonexistent, evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the editor who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. The user never notified me of the pending sockpuppet case he had issued, nor was I afforded the opportunity to present this and other evidence to my defense. , that editor in the DRN stated: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past '''perceived''' '' wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::This editor proceeded to try and get me blocked anyway, and with very weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. I should state that I do not feel comfortable with that user to overlook and transform the La Luz del Mundo page, especially not while I am blocked. Unlike other admins or senior editors who have fairly contributed to that page in the past, I feel that this user at any point may have too much of an impartial interest to self-designate themselves to edit and overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]) in which I resulted the victim of collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low as sockpuppetry. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with another user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version (both of them were blocked for it and ). That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the weak, if not nonexistent, evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the editor who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. The user never notified me of the pending sockpuppet case he had issued, nor was I afforded the opportunity to present this and other evidence to my defense. , that editor in the DRN stated: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past '''perceived''' '' wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::This editor proceeded to try and get me blocked anyway, and with very weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. I should state that I do not feel comfortable with that user to overlook and transform the La Luz del Mundo page, especially not while I am blocked. Unlike other admins or senior editors who have fairly contributed to that page in the past, I feel that this user at any point may have too much of an impartial interest to self-designate themselves to edit and overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I want to make some things clear. This was my first DRN case first DRN case. When I took it on, there had already been allegations of sockpuppetry thrown around. During my initial investigation of the dispute, i looked at some of the traffic, found it suspicious, and made an inquiry with WP:SPI. as noted, the checkuser was initially denied, so i explained my reasoning, it was inconclusive, i thought that was the end of it. You will note the chronology, this all happened at the beginning of my attempts to handle the dispute. Please also note that unlike certain other disputes, for WP:SPI notification is not required; the wording on the page says "Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement."

I had thought we were making progress in resolving the dispute, and I was waiting for you to respond when i discovered that you had been blocked. I was a little bit surprised, but I closed the dispute because it did not seem like you would be able to respond in a timely manner for this reason. To be perfectly honest, I also harbored doubts about your ability to refrain from personal attacks, as that (and the hostility it engenders) seemed to me to be a significant obstacle to improvement of the article. Given the tenor of your rhetoric both on the LLDM talk page and in the formal dispute, it took me great effort to assume good faith, which i tried my very best to do, and it likewise took me substantial effort to be balanced in my assessments because of your rhetoric.

Had you been able to respond before I closed the dispute, if you had done so with personal attacks again I was prepared to mark the case as "failed" and recommend an additional RfC/U, mediation, or ArbCom.

Finally, because you were blocked at what I felt was an inopportune time, I feel like I have some continuing responsibility to make sure that the most significant elements of criticism are included in the article. This is why, in your absence, I have posted on the talk page, and made suggestions to some of the language proposed by Fordx12. I do think that there should be much more economy of language (which, given the wordiness of this post you may be able to tell is difficult for me), but I do think that the essential elements of the criticisms you have been vigilant in including should remain in the article. When you do return to editing, whenever that is, I will likely remove the article from my watchlist. I have high hopes that you will then be able to engage your fellow editors in a manner more productive than these last few months appear to have been. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm particularly skeptical, considering that you and the other editor were making the same reverts and one of the accounts was approaching 3RR. Also, CU data being  Inconclusive does not mean that the accounts are necessarily  Unrelated. --Rschen7754 03:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)