User talk:Two for the show

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Two for the show, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Middle East Media Research Institute. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet question[edit]

When new editors jump right into AfDs and ANIs, they often remind people of other older users. Such is the case with your account and Shuki's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shuki#08_January_2011 betsythedevine (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting approach. So, if I check out an editor such as betsythedevine , I see that less than 50 edits into their wiki career, they jumped right into an AfD. Would you like to disclose any previous account you were using before then, or, given these results, simply post a short apology for this bad-faith assumption? Two for the show (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't using any account except (briefly) an IP before registering with my own identity as Betsythedevine. Would you care to make a similar disclosure? I do apologize for mistaking you for a sockpuppet-user that Checkuser says you are not. betsythedevine (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate & accept your apology. Like you, I have edited as an IP for a while, prior to registering an account. Hope we can put this episode behind us and get back to editing. Two for the show (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very civil acceptance of my apology, and I hope you enjoy many interesting discussions and creative opportunities in your future career on Wikipedia. (Not sure why my earlier comment removed some of yours; I didn't realize it had until I saw your correctionl.) betsythedevine (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mind sharing that IP to dispel any rumors that you're merely a proxy-using sockpuppet? I suppose it must have plenty of edits on it. Bulldog123 12:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what those old IPs were, and you should know better than to ask that I reveal personal information in any case. Your concerns regarding proxies should have been addressed by the fact that 2 Check user requests have already been run, finding no proxies. Two for the show (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Question 2:Electric Bugaloo[edit]

I had a different theory but held off on the report to see how the RSN played out. And it just seemed rude as you are the only editor actually shouldering the burden of proof for the issues at question. Ah well. Sol (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batting 0-2 now. Will there be much more of this harassment, or are you going to get back to writing an encyclopedia (assuming of course, that was even your intention in the first place) ? Two for the show (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well waddya know? who would have thunk it? Clearest case of projection I've seen yet. Two for the show (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin: If you are considering an unblock, please contact me by email first. T. Canens (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2011 (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).

Two for the show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a NoCal sock pupper - this was already checked by CU ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments_3) a while ago, and found unrelated.

Decline reason:

This account and NoCal100 "appear to be located in the same city". This isn't the same as "unreelated". The account declared to be unrelated is Opportunidaddy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:46, 15 November 2011 (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.

If you really inoccent you best shot is WP:BASC you should email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Please see the ban appeals procedures before contacting the subcommittee.--Shrike (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (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).

Two for the show (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know if you are aware, but Chengdu has more than 15 million people in it, so being in (or "appearing to be in") the same city as another editor doesn't mean much in this case.

Decline reason:

I don't know if you are aware, but that's hardly the only evidence against you. I'm sure there are plenty of other people in Chengdu who edit; most of them have not been suspected of being sockpuppets of other users. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2011 (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 never said that being in (or "appearing to be in") the same city as another editor means anything. You claimed that the accounts were claimed to be unrelated, I checked the relevant page, and it says there that you could be - since the 2 of you "appear to be located in the same city". Not being a CheckUser myself, and trying to understand the way they come to there conclusions, I would guess that this would make it an  Inconclusive or a  Possible - either way, it's up to the admins to compare the edits of the 2 accounts, and decide if it looks like they are the same person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the admin back then decided that there is not enough evidence to block this user.There are probably some new evidence that was sent to T. Canens by mail.And as I proposed before to the blocked user its probably better to deal with such private information by mail.BTW did you contacted T. Canens by mail and found the evidence compelling?--Shrike (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I simply read the user's statement here, read the linked section, and concluded that the user was misinterpreting (possibly by mistake, possibly on purpose, no evidence one way or the other) what the CheckUser wrote. Since the user presented no reason to doubt that they are the same person, short of the CheckUser report, I saw no reason to look any farther once it was clear that the user's statement was wrong. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Two_for_the_show&oldid=756108647"