User talk:AndrésSnape

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I've never used any socks

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser verified sock. Looking at your edits, there is absolutely no reason to waste any more time here. Kuru (talk) 01:43, 10 September 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.

Grab your chair on

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).

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

Request reason:

Since there is not enough space in this template for totally explaining myself, I'd use the space under here

Decline reason:

I haven't seen the data myself, but a few points:

ArbCom is not able to release any checkuser data. That can only be done by the Wikimedia Foundation, and you'd probably need a subpoena from a US court to get it anyway.
When a checkuser says a relation is confirmed, that usually means that there's a closer relation that two accounts sharing the same IP. There will be other technical data that matches up.
Users using open proxies are subject to greater suspicion, largely because use of them is prohibited for security reasons. So if you're admitting to using one above - I'm not clear on that - it's not helping your case.
Where a checkuser data is unable to confirm a relation with technical data alone, behavioral evidence is often a deciding factor. Where both behavioral and technical evidence point to a relation, there is very little chance that the conclusion is incorrect.
Looking at your edits myself, I do not see any evidence to indicate that your presence here will be a benefit to the project as a whole. Even if you are not evading a block on another account, your actions to date appear disruptive.

For these reasons, your appeal is declined. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:21, 10 September 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.

Since some declarations at WikiNews, I got the information I need for making up a decent defense (although I could have asked for the CheckUser output on me, but because I saw something about that only ArbCom could give IPs and things, I didn't). I'd like to start saying that:

User:Keelan717 is not an account of mine, neither I even heard about its existence until the people at WikiNews mentioned it.

Following the usual practices here, I'd like to run a duck test between me and that vandal:

He does not cuack like an Andrés, I am a native spanish speaker with kind of a good english. Not an advanced german speaker nor a superb english writer.

And some other subtle details.

If CheckUser showed that I used the same IP as him, It'll probably be because he used a proxy in Chile (yes, I'm Chilean, using DHCP), so probably the old proxy IP was assigned to me. There are several subjects where Keelan717 and I don't give enough fucks for fighting for them, so there are not many reasons for me to sock. Further checking his contribs, I saw how he even added himself to a bureaucrat list (lol), I did not even vandalize (ok, I probably used some offensive language, but meh), in my very first start, I did not even care about Wikipedia but suddenly I got cautivated, for example, with the friendly feedback and willness to help shown by some users. Keelan717 was (according to his contribs) here only to vandalize, in the hypothetical case it was actually my sock, User:AndrésSnape would have vandalized, too, instead, it did not even do any (positive and negative) edits at all. (If you did not understand this paragraph, I'm sorry but sometimes when I write huge paragraphs in english I get all confused)

Also, the attitude from User:Kuru was not the best of all, too. "Looking at your edits, there is absolutely no reason to waste any more time here.". Yes, I'm a member of the GNAA, and yes, I am a spic (if it is an offensive term for someone I'll gladly stop using it). And I know that most GNAA users are devious vandals (I've been even told to sock for evading this account's problem, but I believe in diplomacy), but I did not even vandalize at all (and I have not vandalized before, either). But please, do not be biased against me, I don't have the best of the intentions (nor any at all), but I have not done anything wrong.

I am curious on wikipedia and I feel cautivated, I did not even have the opportunity to do something wrong nor good at all. Thanks. AndrésSnape (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your quick reply. I'd like to rephrase myself: The checkuser mistake was probably because whoever used my IP before me was the enabler of mr. proxy. Also, I have not made any "bad" edits, and yes, most people (logicaly) wouldn't see any opportunities comming out from my account, but that is for another type of ban, my ban about suggested sockpuppets is totally arbritary, I am affected by collateral damage, that's all (silly coincidence, tho). Also, following the (widely used by trolls and bad editors, I know, silly excuses) Assume good faith policy, since I have not made any bad edits and just some "traces" that I could "be a future-probable-maybe vandal", I should not be banned (and mostly of all, not under the sockpuppet reason). 186.105.75.20 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^This is and edit of mine, since transparency is a good "weapon", I wanted to do it this way. AndrésSnape (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]