User talk:The Bogs Dollocks

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 20:33, 21 May 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).

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

Request reason:

WTF! "Block evasion"? It looks like this poorly executed sock-fishing-trip has gone badly wrong. I'm guessing de-facto don't know a thing about this. Where is the evidence of socking? Where is the evidence of a block evasion? Who asked for Tnxman307 to make this accusation? Nobody. The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are obviously a sockpuppet, and you were confirmed by checkuser to be DeFacto (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:44, 22 May 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).

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

Request reason:

You are clearly and so obviously mistaken. How long did you just spend investigating this request? You didn't investigate it at all, did you? I for one know that it cannot be true, and de-facto will certainly know that. If you think otherwise you need to explain why, so that you can have your misunderstandings corrected. Does "checkuser" know who is sat at a computer when an edit takes place? Does "checkuser" know how many computers have access to a given IP address? I'd say that "confirmed by checkuser" is an oxymoron. "checkuser" does not have the technology to confirm that a given person made a given edit. What has "checkuser" matched on? ISP? OS? Browser? All the computers in this office that have exactly the same build would thus be treated as one. So all the users of all those computers are sock-puppets of each other? Read the "checkuser" policy. Who asked for the check? It was nothing more than a fishing excercise. Get real. Another rejection will be considered to be condoning the abuse of the "checkuser" process and further action will be taken; possibly leading to the removal of sysop privileges. The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Make my day. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:56, 22 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Are there any mature admins out there prepared to act honorably and like they've got a pair to attempt to defend and justify the actions of their beloved corps of Wikipedia administrators? So far all I have had are lily-livered weak excuses for admins cowering behind, and abusing, the superior powers that their office gives them.

Failure to address questions asked and failing to attempt to explain the apparent malpractice that has occurred here is a sign of weakness, not of strength and evidence of a lack of confidence in the sustainability of their position.

Cue another coward from their ranks to block my ability to edit my own talk page and another boiler-plate inflammatory response.

I'm beginning to believe what I've read elsewhere about the lack of accountability and disgraceful behaviour of the admins here and the shocking state of the governance of the Wikipedia project. The Bogs Dollocks (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no reason whatsoever to second guess the judgment of the Checkusers here. I've revoked your talk page access given your aggressive tone. You may appeal to the ban appeals subcommittee if you feel the need. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 22 May 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.

You're only digging your own grave deeper by throwing out insults casually. I will point out that checkuser-based blocks cannot be overturned by standard admins (as the Checkuser tool is privileged) and that JPgordon is himself a checkuser, and would likely have discussed the block were there any reason to suspect it was given in error. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]