User talk:DATBUS

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

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cheeser1 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello DATBUS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

March 2008[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for as being a confirmed sock of BGMNYC; per WP:GHBH.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 13 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure what this is about, I do have many housemates and we do share computers. Some of my posts may have been "controversial?" I don't believe I have violated any TOS, at least not intentionally, but sorry for any problems.DATBUS (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The blocking admin didn't say that you made controversial edits with this account. What he accused you of is a "Good hand, bad hand" sort of behavior, where you use one account (in this case, BGMNYC), to cause trouble, and "fight" it with your good account - see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts for details of what this means. The evidence of the two accounts being run by the same person isn't technical IP address information, but evidence that any user can see at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BGMNYC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 13 March 2008 (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.

I don't believe that is true. I would like to see the evidence of that, it sounds pretty ridiculous. It seems like you are declining my request on this guys word?DATBUS (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out WP:MEAT makes it clear that it doesn't matter if you're two people sharing a PC or one person. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

But that is not true. I would like to see the evidence of that. Was my account was closed based on this guys word? Can accounts be blocked like that without any panel who reviews evidence or confirms the accuracy of the evidence? I'm sure I've taken parts in discussions that were challenging, but that doesnt mean it was out of line or even unusual for wikipedia standards. I have certainly encountered remarkably more "passionate" editing from other editors who are not blocked. I don't udnerstand how a discussion that may be difficult or controversial is described as "causing trouble". I dont believe there is any evidence of me having a "good/bad" type of discussion with myself! I request again that you please unblock this account. If not, can you please show me where this evidence is and how it came to be used to prove "Good hand/bad hand" editing. Thanks for your time.DATBUS (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See Seicer's statement below. Checkuser has confirmed that this is a sockpuppet account. — Maxim(talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (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.

Note: Checkuser confirms that these were all related to one primary account, and that the accounts were being used for disruptive purposes. seicer | talk | contribs 22:38, 13 March 2008 (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).

DATBUS (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, the checkuser gives "no comment" with respect to IP addresses, and I cant see any record of "disruption" or "good hand/bad hand" editing, which are the the stated reasons I've been blocked. This does not seem to be done fairly. If you are going to block people's accounts shouldn't it be done fairly?


Please include a decline or accept 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.

Why are you posting every single comment as an unblock request? You might wind up getting in trouble for abusing the template. You can't honestly expect to be unblocked because someone else in the CU case wasn't confirmed as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet when you were. You were also clearly explained the policies like WP:NPOV and so forth, and refused to work constructively or appropriately and logjammed the talk page with vague complaints and criticisms of the subject of the article (which you did in deliberate collision with five other users - or with five sockpuppets). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point, note exhibit A: Cheeser1. DATBUS (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, and this is the last time I'll explain this to you and your sock/meatpuppets, I am not a sockpuppet with Yahel, Malik, etc. Such a claim is obviously frivolous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do I stop this person from harassing me? This entire thing was started by him because he is an over-zealous, hostile editor. How can I protect myself from him if other editors are going to support him and no one is willing to actually look at the evidence? Where is the objectivity, this whole thing appears to have started when I went off the discussion page and requested objective editors to help. Instead they sent Seicer, who I found out that has a history with, and a pattern of defending this "Cheeser1". The Checkuser gave no conclusive evidence on IP addresses and no one has actually presented any evidence of "good hand/bad hand" or "disruptive" editing. I am asking for fairness; This whole thing started when I actively pursued objective editors to challenge what appeared to be a group of editors bullying other editors to keep control of a page. This was a bad call, and all you have to do is follow the sequence of events to see what happened here. This guy Cheeser1 is still showing up on my talk page, trying to bait and harrass me. Even though I have long since asked for objective help, and am on my 3rd Unblock request, both he and Seicer appear to still be influencing the outcome. DATBUS (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is bullying or baiting you and there is no conspiracy to silence you and your friends and/or sockpuppets. I am "showing up" on your talk page because it was automatically added to my watchlist when I placed your sockpuppetry accusation notice here, and I am responding because I (and others) are trying to show you which policies you violated (not that I enjoy repeating myself). That is not baiting or harassment, it's explanation, which is something you seem to be overlooking. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that two previously uninvolved (you might call them "objective") administrators have declined your unblock request and have also tried to point you to the policies and guidelines in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never mentioned anything about a Malik or Yahel and these are more lies. I want you to get off this page, stop reverting my edits, stop harassing me, stop misrepresenting my posts and stay away from me. DATBUS (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a constructive attitude. You have been disruptive and I have done my best to stop this disruption, inform you of policies, and try to move this situation forward. You do not own your talk page, and I am free to post here - it is not just allowed but probably good that I continue to help resolve this situation by pointing you to previous parts of this matter and to the policies that apply. This is not harassment, and I did not revert any of your edits (except those inappropriate ones to articles), unless you're referring to where I fixed your confusing expansion of comments that had already been replied to (here). You can't make a comment, get a reply (or replies), and then significantly change it. It's confusing, unnecessary, and in this case (intentionally or not) makes my response look completely different than it originally did. Since you're really not saying anything new, I'm not going to respond any more (unless you do say something new). Nobody at Talk:White privilege was harassing you or doing anything wrong. No one involved in your SSP or RFCU did anything wrong. No one on this talk page is doing anything wrong. It never helps anyone's case to start claiming that administrators and large groups of unrelated users are all working in collision to silence them, especially when you admit that what you want to do is introduce particular POV material (unsourced, no less) into the article in collision with several other accounts/people. If you have other interests on Wikipedia, or if you can edit this article in a manner that fits our policies and guidelines, I suggest you try to make that happen, instead of keeping this up. I'd like to see you become a positive contributor, but until then it seems as though you might remain indefinitely blocked - blaming other people won't make that "indefinite" any shorter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darling I am so sorry to hear that this has happened to you. As you know I encountered a similar confusing attack, but managed to get it worked out. I told you this can be a very dysfunctional environment, the rules appear to be misapplied sometimes by people like him, and 'buddies' who decide they don't like you for whatever reason. This notion of "assume Good faith" can be thrown about in the most hypocritical ways. No one has responded to your unban request after all this time, it appears that you did not get very fair shake. Your requests for objectivity seems to have fallen on deaf ears and editors appear to be treating you like a pariah regardless of the points you've raised, which which appear very concerning and worthy of investigation to me. I don't know about this Sockputtetry accusation, but nobody should be subjected to this type of stalking on Wikipedia regardless, this guy is clearly trying to get at you. I know your concerns, but its not just your imagination, you're not being paranoid. I read through this, you were treated badly here and somehow he got away with it. (Holocaust Denier???) "Sigh" well sorry I am not an administrator, so can only send you this kind of support right now. If I were you I would move on and not return to this account. Don't waste another word on this person, it's not worth the aggravation and I can see that it hurt you. Don't worry, there is support for you, miss your contributions dear! ShirleyPartridge (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed: With all due respect, the checkuser gives "no comment" with respect to IP addresses, and there is no record of "disruption" or "good hand/bad hand" editing, but those are the the stated reasons I was blocked. It has been several months now since I last attempted to request the unblock, so I am submitting this request again. Please take a look, and thanks so much for your consideration.}}.

}}}

Note: In some cases, a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired. Please check your block log. If no blocks are listed, or the latest one has already expired, 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.

Administrator use only: If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.
{{unblock reviewed|1=original unblock reason|decline=reason — ~~~~}}
If you accept the request (note that you MAY NOT unblock your own account), replace the unblock template with {{tlx|unblock|reason}}, and post the following directly underneath the unblock template:
{{subst:Request accepted|reason}}

This template puts pages into Category:Requests for unblock.

Abuse of this template may result in your talk page being protected.


This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:
  • [[User:{{DATBUS}|DATBUS]] (block log • ipblocklist • rangeblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • unblock)
  • Reason for unblocking: With all due respect, the checkuser gives "no comment" with respect to IP addresses, and there is no record of "disruption" or "good hand/bad hand" editing, but those are the the stated reasons I was blocked. I have learned how not to share IP addresses. It has been several months now since I last attempted to request the unblock, so I am submitting this request again. Please help me, I posted this request months ago, and still no one has responded. Thanks so much for your consideration.

by changing {{unblock}} to {{unblock|your reason here}}.
If your reason contains a URL with a "=" in it you will need to add "1=" to the start of your reason or else it will not display correctly.

}}}

Note: In some cases, a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired. Please check your block log. If no blocks are listed, or the latest one has already expired, 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.

DATBUS (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DATBUS&oldid=1142950522"