User talk:Beholdernig

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 03:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Model minority. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WuhWuzDat 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wuhwuzdat&curid=21713874&diff=420925587&oldid=420924647 WuhWuzDat 04:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks and probable 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. Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

User:Wuhwuzdat insulted me first, I quote: "NOBODY can demand that I do ANYTHING here...now stay off my page you stinking racist sockpuppet vandal" I only answered in a way that was adequate to this unprecedented personal attack.--Beholdernig (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Other editors' conduct does not excuse your own. In this case, not only was there the personal attack, but there was also your editing pattern at Model minority, which makes it apparent that you are a previously-blocked user who has returned to continue the edit war. The block on this account for block evasion is valid. —C.Fred (talk) 04:19, 27 March 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.

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

No, I am new on wikipedia, I edited wikipedia before but I had no account. This user accuses me of sockpuppetry, only because I reverted one edit. You admit that User:Wuhwuzdat was rude too, why then wasn't he blocked just as me? This is absurd. Please,unblock me, I promise that I will not do it again.

Decline reason:

I am pretty convinced that the evidence that we have suggests that this is a sock account. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:40, 27 March 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.

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm no sockpuppet. Let's have some fun, show me your "evidence" please.--Beholdernig (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We are not in the habit of sharing Checkuser evidence with those accounts we suspect of sockpuppetry. We don't have to. This website is private property and we are thus allowed under just about every legal jurisdiction in the world (of course, only Florida and the U.S. matter as a practical consideration) to exclude people for whatever reasons we see fit. What amazes me here is that no one has brought up your username as a reason for the block. Given your posting area, the use of that name in other sock accounts linked to you, it is obvious to me that the last syllable is an abbreviated form of a common racial slur (perhaps chosen to avoid the username filter) and thus a justification in and of itself for an indefinite block. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 27 March 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.

This is mad[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I can't believe my eyes. You find more and more improbable excuses just to keep me blocked. I tell you again, I am no sockpuppet and this is my first account. The last syllable has nothing to do with "nigger", it's an abbreviation of my name. Beholdernig (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The prime reason for this block is the behavioural similarity in edits, which is how it ended up at a sockpuppet case to begin with. Looking at the edits, the style of arguments, the articles edited, this is clearly either a) a sockpuppet, b) a sockpuppet, or c) someone with a disruptive agenda. All three provide more than enough reason to keep you blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 27 March 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.

Protip: If the CU result comes back positive in any way (Confirmed, Likely, Possible) you will generally not be able to challenge any block based on it, especially if other factors lead others to suspect you are that user irrespective of a CU. Also, CU data cannot be released except under very specific circumstances (see m:Privacy policy), so as to avoid exposing the checked account's IP address and other nonpublic identifying information. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]