User talk:Boodlepounce

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Boodlepounce! Thank you for your contributions. I am KennethSides and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

KennethSides (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Echigo mole (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. 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Boodlepounce has to say that he is surprised. Of course Boodlepounce may be prejudiced by knowing the facts of the matter, but Boodlepounce really sees no reason to believe that he is a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. Boodlepounce's view of the discussion at SPI was of Mathsci having made up his mind beforehand, for understandable reasons, and asserting the fallacy as fact. Boodlepounce was simply not connected to anything that Mathsci was saying about the edits by other editors. When Mathsci finally raised a specific point actuially realting to Boodlepounce, about a common reference book, Boodlepounce was able to address it in what seems to Boodlepounce a satisfactory way. So Boodlepounce appeals on the grounds that no case was made for this identification, at least, no case that Boodlepounce was not able to answer. But Boodlepounce will hardly suffer if this mistake is not overturned and Boodlepounce never edits again: Wikipedia is by no means the whole of Boodlepounce's life. Boodlepounce wants to raise a more important point. It is clear to Boodlepounce in hindsight that the case against Boodlepounce has been set up by Echigo mole - Boodlepounce adds a reference to an article recently edited by Mathsci, Echigo mole accesses it on Google Books, provokes Mathsci and disaster ensues. Echigo mole has played on Mathsci's nerves to the point where any interference with articles related to Mathsci's editing is seen as sockpuppetry, and uninvolved editors such as Boodlepounce can be caught up in the net quite easily, especially with this manipulation by Echigo mole. Boodlepounce suggests that blocking on Mathsci's say-so with Echigo mole's manipulations in the background is likely to lead to disastrous consequences. Boodlepounce requests reinstatement as a victim, not a villain, and confidently awaits your reconsideration.

Decline reason:

It is respectfully asked that the user provide their own unblock request, rather than one from a third party as indicated. - Vianello (Talk) 20:34, 6 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Boodlepounce respectfully requests a further review. Boodlepounce's previous review appears to have declined on the grounds that it was not made by Boodlepounce. Boodlepounce did indeed make that request, just as Boodlepounce is making this one. Please reconsider the substance of Boodlepounce's previous case. Boodlepounce notes that subsequent activity on Boodlepounce's talk page has elevated the probability that some other user is maliciously attempting to have Boodlepounce misidentified, just as Boodlepounce has stated previously.

Decline reason:

Yunshui declines to action a frivolous and disruptive unblock request. Yunshui also respectfully informs Boodlepounce that Boodlepounce's talkpage access is revoked. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:16, 8 May 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.

These requests are still being made in the third person, despite instructions otherwise. The user is presumably perfectly capable of writing in plain English (he edits from the UK). The coordination with Algebraic Jordanian (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and the naive mathematical errors have not been explained. Nor the choice of Jordan algebras or operator algebras as a topic out-of-the-blue. Hyperbaric oxygen (talk · contribs · logs · block log), another blocked sock of Echigo mole, is making similar requests. In the past there were similar requests concerning the accounts Flexural strength (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Static web page (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Ansatz (talk · contribs · logs · block log), editing in the subject of univalent holomorphic functions around Grunsky matrix, was probably the most argumentative of the personas as a would-be mathematical editor. Mathsci (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the kind of disruption the sockmaster is known for when requesting unblocks with his socks. The whole creepy 3rd person thing is new, but Echigo mole has always treated unblocks as art, so each persona is different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory

You are not going to win this one. Even if your appeal succeeds (which would mean facing an unpalatable truth), it is clear that you will continue to be hounded with meritless SPI charges untill after sufficient reptition someone will assume that\ what has been repeated enough times must be true. After all, no sensible person can suppose that even if you possess a certain book, then that proves anything except that at you possess a certain book, but somehow that will be used as some kind of proof of something. I seriously suggest that you consider as your plan B simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki, but equally it would be imperative that you privately communicate the link to AC and assure them that you intend to respect any restrictions applicable to your current name while they are in force. It is an annoyance but that seems to be what happens to people who are here to build an encyclopedia, as opposed to playing some kind of game. Silliest American (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Silliest American has also been blocked as a sock of Echigo mole, by Deskana. The rest I leave to another admin to review as I made the block here, and only say my confidence level is not diminished by the claims on this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not think that Boodlepounce is a sock of Echigo Mole, since he does not seem to have a similar MO. However, I think he would have a better chance at having an unblock request taken seriously if he stopped referring to himself in the third person. Such behavior is indistinguishable from trolling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]