User talk:BrixtonBox

Hey, I'm a bit obsessive compulsive about the wording in articles' information - so that is my primary goal in making contributions on this site. If you wish to talk, feel free below. But please be civil, regardless of the situation.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was locked supposedly after a CU investigation, but I wasn't allowed to see the virtual connection to the other account(s) - which leads me to believe I was wrongfully blocked by an already-aggressive and rude administrator. I just joined Wikipedia and want to dedicate myself to the never-ending task of professionializing Wikipedia articles. BrixtonBox (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia: Typo Team[reply]

Decline reason:

For privacy reasons, we indeed can't disclose users' technical information. However this does not invalidate your block, as we're not in a court of law and this is not a criminal prosecution. Accusing others of rudeness is not helping your cause either. Max Semenik (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2016 (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.

I'm sorry about that, commenting about another editor's personal demeanor was over the line. I just thought that "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others."

In any case, since it's been proven that I'm not a sock and my account is still unblockable, do I have administrator concent to create a new account and rejoin Wikipedia:Typo Team? BrixtonBox (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

No. You are a sock, and further additional accounts, if likewise confirmed, will be blocked as well. JohnInDC (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've yet to see this drowning, definitive evidence to tie me to that title. You've essentially pointed your finger at me and had me blocked with nothing more than a, "he's a sock", because you're a trusted administrator and I'm new to the site - making you automatically favored when the actual tyrant is you. I'm trying to professionalize articles and you revised the first one back to a [citation needed] frenzy and had me blocked before I could even move on to another article. Are these truly the brilliant minds maintaining order on one of the most popular websites in the world? Unbelievable. BrixtonBox (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia: Typo Team}}[reply]

You're blocked because the Check User process shows that you're editing from the same IP or IP range as a series of prior blocked socks, created to evade the block of your original account following a run of disruptive editing. If you want to be unblocked, go back to your original blocked account and follow the procedures there. You've been told this countless times, so give up the whole put-upon, innocent thing. Here's a link: User_talk:UnbiasedVictory. PS: Creating new socks, when you know it's against the rules, is not a good way to persuade people that you understand the problem and are prepared to follow the rules. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what a Checkuser does. Thank you. My question is how is it possible that my IP address matches with UnbiasedVictory? I edit from my smartphone with a data plan - there are no IP addresses that match mine, so please stop trying to get me to admit something I'm not. I don't feel I should be blocked in the first place, but if I follow any procedure, which I also think is unnecessary, it will be through this account - my account. BrixtonBox (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia: Typo Team}}[reply]

Yes, yes, you said the same things at User talk:Amerijuanican, User talk:Nacho wifi, User talk:C 1 J 1 7 L 9 4, User talk:Detectionist - "this is my only account, those IPs aren't me - there's been a mistake, I don't understand what's wrong, that was me but I've changed, I'm new here, this is unfair". Asking to be unblocked from a sock puppet account is not going to work. Creating one sock account after another is not going to work. Go back to UnbiasedVictory, give evidence that you know what the problems are, pledge to stay within the rules thereafter and then do it. It's quite simple and it's a shame you can't be made to understand this. JohnInDC (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very attentive. I'm impressed. Seeing as the CU has already confirmed me as a sock, we're just about finished here. But for clarification I was forced to commit sock puppetry. UnbiasedVictory is gobally-blocked and can't be logged into. To start fresh, what do I do? Maybe you could sort of mentor me so that I can take this pledge and move on if it's as simple as you suggest. BrixtonBox (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

User talk:UnbiasedVictory. JohnInDC (talk) 6:56 pm, Today (UTC−5)

After I wait 6 months, UnbiasedVictory will still be blocked and I won't be able to appeal. BrixtonBox (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Thanks for the reply, see you in 6 months. BrixtonBox (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]