User talk:Thebestfeet

Archives

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Film Fan (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:42, 3 November 2013 (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).

Thebestfeet (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 sockpuppet. Please dig deeper... check behavior more closely, IPs, etc... what else can I say? There is no evidence because my previous wiki experience was as unregistered. Furthermore, I edit exclusively constructively, avoid edit wars, I'm polite in conversation, respect other contributors, etc etc, all of which appears to be quite different than Film fan. Thebestfeet (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've read the investigation and poked around some more. The behavioral evidence alone is convincing, much less the "likely" result form the checkuser. Significant overlap in obscure articles, jumping in to the same old debates, and revisions like this. Please, I would strongly urge you look at WP:OFFER; wait a while without socking and make a coherent unblock request with your old account. This kind of behavior is just silly. Kuru (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Film fan is one of numerous users whose contribs I took a nosey at. Others include ‎sohambanerjee, infamousprince, lugnuts, Quentin X, Betty Logan, etc. I am not Film fan and I share my IP with nobody. Thebestfeet (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't answer the question (much like you did everything you could to evade answering reasonable and relevant queries at the SPI) and frankly if we took people's word that they weren't socks we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy at all. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (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.

Daniel Case, what question am I not answering? I am innocent. Thebestfeet (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of why you're not a sockpuppet. Some people, when they get blocked for sockpuppetry, at least try to suggest why we might have made a mistake (of course, in the process they usually request a checkuser to "prove their innocence", something that's almost impossible, but whatever ...). As I said already, simply saying "I'm not a sockpuppet" doesn't demonstrate that you're not. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address that in both unblock requests. Film Fan is one of a few users whose contributions I looked at. I don't believe that my behavior is any more like Film Fan's than the other users I mentioned, and, if so, then not by much. It would be useful if somebody told me where I went wrong. Thebestfeet (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2013 (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).

Thebestfeet (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 sockpuppet. Thebestfeet (talk) 10:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

And I am not a dog, but I can't prove it. Simply claiming something doesn't make it true. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 8 November 2013 (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.

How can I prove it? Please enlighten me! Thebestfeet (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to prove a negative, and your editing and behaviour don't help your case... If you genuinely believe you've been blocked in error, my advice would be to email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee as your next recourse. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Thebestfeet (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Fan, you're edits are too convincing and goddamn suspicious to be turned down. I suggest you to keep calm and return after 30 Years when I'll no longer be here. Soham Banerjee 18:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are out of order, Sohambanerjee1998. I have done nothing to you. Is the way I edit problematic? Thebestfeet (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging your edits you come of as Edit warring but when the similarities with FF is considered then they are huge. Soham Banerjee 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I haven't done any edit warring. Thebestfeet (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts[edit]

Lugnuts, what is the reason for edits like this? Thebestfeet (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]