User talk:Argusbargus

So, for the record, this is NOT a sockpuppet account of Mehul, and I have no idea who operates that account or the others.

Apparently the Admin dealing with this issue has a real zeal to chase Mehul and is on a witchhunt, for he appears to have lapsed into paranoia.

But in the interest of civility, I will resist attacks on his integrity and address him here. Since my account has been permanently blocked, I can't edit anywhere else in Wikipedia including the shill of a sockpuppet investigation they did on my account, nor the individual user pages of the involved parties to call them out. I guess I'll have to do that once the auto block on my IP address lapses in 24 hours and I can at least edit as an IP to direct them back here to read this commentary.

For "B"

The situation at hand

So, "B" let me get this straight you're on a witchhunt against an editor "Mehul" who broke the rules, used multiple accounts, and got blocked.

At a later date, I created a page with the same topic as one you say this editor made, and, based solely on this fact, you've now blocked my account permanently.

Anything you'd like to add?

The Shill Sockpuppet Investigation

I read the "Investigation" linked from my userpage, and I know that "Inconclusive" means the investigator found ZERO indication that my account is linked to any others. So you can't justify the block there.

It looks like the only "evidence" that I'm associated to the other editor is that I launched my account new, did some smaller edits, and created a page with the same topic.

Oh and then someone in the comments said that the articles sound similar? Well, that's just genius!

Clearly the content was different, as was also mentioned by one of the commentors. And hey, if two people wrote articles about any person, wouldn't they sound similar? The guy is who he is, he's done what he's done, and he's been covered in a certain amount of media. When there are a dozen or so references, it's not like I was choosing between the content in Newsweek and the content in Time for content. He's clearly notable, but he's not Bill Gates.

So, in summary there is no evidence, but you're so keen to punish someone that you blocked me anyway, simply because you can. Sounds like abuse of power to me.

Where you err

But the real issue here is that you are procedurally wrong... A point I intend to take up with others.

You are clearly abusing your admin privileges by effectively enacting a permanent block on ANY article on a specific topic despite the undeniable fact that there is no consensus around this.

You, effectively blocking an article on Tom Gildred through your unilateral action, not through the Wikipedia process is clearly improper. And the only reason you're doing it is because you know the topic is notable and would survive a Deletion Review.

A challenge to you

So I'll continue to withold my name calling for now... BUT, If you're not a bloody coward, revert the deletion and have some disinterested party submit the article, as I created it for AFD. You don't vote... and I can't vote since you've so kindly Blocked my account from Wikipedia... and we'll just let nature take its course. Up to the challenge, or would that be too much for you?

Conflict of Interest

And if you are removing and blocking useful and encyclopedic content from being put into Wikipedia, doing so willfully, and breaking procedural rules to justify your actions, then YOU are guilty of editing with a bias that is in conflict with the purposes and interests of the Wikipedia project.

For the future

And BTW, when I go out and create a second account since this one is hosed, does that make me a sockpuppet? I think not, so I guess that's what I'll have to do.

Happy editing Argusbargus (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you were wrongly blocked, you may request an independent review via the {{unblock}} template or by making a request via the Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System. Both of these are discussed at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. By way of free advice, engaging in personal attacks is not a good way to get your request granted. --B (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For whoever reviews this, perhaps relevant information at [1], which explains the (alleged) sock/meat factory. --B (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The block was improper both in fact and in procedure. In fact, I am not associated with Mehul or any of their sockpuppets. In procedure, the block was made by the same admin/editor who made the nomination and the only support he received (as far as I can tell) was of the editor that seconded the request for a checkuser investigation. The checkuser (performed by Mike V) resulted in "Inconclusive" and Mike V provided no other input. So, essentially the checkuser was meaningless. The two editors, ("B" and "Vanjagenije") working on concert, decided that my account was a sockpuppet, made an accusation of this, and, when confronted by a complete lack of supporting evidence, talked about it among themselves on the sockpuppet investigation page and just unilaterally blocked me anyway. This does not seem like consensus (unless two like-minded editors, who choose to be active in blocking accounts and sockpuppet investigations, can reach a representative consensus without the input of anyone else) If this is the correct protocol, then the checkuser is entirely redundant, and all two admins/editors need to do to block anyone they want to block is to make an accusation, send themselves a few messages back and forth, and then bock them. I discuss this more above on this talkpage. I can't imagine this is correct or proper and appeal it.

Decline reason:

After reviewing the SPI, sounds like WP:DUCK sock/paid editing. Additionally, I'll be salting the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 20 April 2015 (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.