User talk:IPadWanderer

3rd party unblock request
I'm an involved editor here, as I've largely been calling to delete the articles that Geek2003 has been working on and for which IPadWanderer has been advocating their retention.

Despite being on "the other side" here, I see this as an "unsafe block". There is no convincing evidence that this is a sock. Their editing actions have been within the bounds of GF. It is not yet policy to block for having a difference of opinion with user:Alan Liefting. Both editors are relatively new to WP and if this was a disruptive sock, Geek2003 is now well aware of how badly that is regarded.

Mostly though I simply fail to see strong evidence for socking. Alan Liefting's comment at the SPI is in my view pejorative: ' is actively opposing the deletions and appears to have retaliated by putting one of the article that I created up for deletion. ' would be damning evidence against a retaliatory sock, if it weren't for the fact that this editor didn't do any of that. The "active opposition" to multiple deletions was on the part of Geek2003, their creator (and would we expect article creators to behave any differently?). Retaliatory deletions are a bad thing, but again that's a behaviour issue for a different editor, not evidence of IPadWanderer being a sock.

IPadWanderer has contributed to one of the several AfDs in effect at present. That's fewer than I have. Should I expect now to be blocked as a sock of Alan Liefting? This is suspicious, even reasonable grounds for a SPI, but it's not enough to invoke WP:DUCK and indef block a new and non-disruptive editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having seen the refused unblock, I've now converted my previous comment to a formal unblock request.
 * "this does not address your alleged usage of multiple accounts"
 * How about the belief that there simply is no such use? Are we now a kangaroo court, where release is only possible if the innocent accused first confesses anyway?
 * "because behavioral evidence shows"
 * It shows nothing of the sort. There's nowhere near enough overlap to support any credible claim of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with Andy. I think an recheck with another more agressive checkuser.    Ebe 123   (+) $talk Contribs$ 21:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above was posted before I made this a formal unblock request, but I don't want to misrepresent Ebe123's views in any way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the third party unblock - nice meaning, but you already know that you take 3rd party requests to WP:ANI. If the editor wants unblock, then they need to post it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I re-checked and, based on an edit on 6 September 2011 (which I suspect was made because this individual messed up his IP management… most sockmasters do it), the link is technically . I would recommend that an unblock not be granted. Another checkuser is welcome to also look into this. AGK  [&bull; ] 11:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ublock request for IPadWanderer now raised at AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)