User talk:Dataport676
{{blockedsock}}
Dataport676 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What? I only commented on User:KingofFilms request for adminship because he welcomed me on my talk page and asked for support. I am not him, do a wp:checkuser if you don't believe me.
Decline reason:
If you honestly believe that he is "prime admin material" and you weren't just commenting because you either are him or you are a friend of his, then your judgement is so seriously flawed that you probably shouldn't be editing here anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
Dataport676 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Flawed judgment" is not a blockable reason. I have already said I am not User:KingofFilm; it's obvious his RFA didn't stand a chance in hell, but I decided to show him some support anyway out of kindness since he welcomed me and seemed to eager to pass. Either file a request for checkuser to prove I am not him or unblock me; as it stands I'm blocked on circumstantial evidence which I contest.
Decline reason:
Looking at the contributions here, this block appears to be valid. Again, not doing a checkuser because that's not going to prove anything in your defense. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- English isn't my first language, I'm having trouble understanding what "prove a negative" is supposed to mean.
- Simply put, Checkuser cannot prove one is not someone else because of various circumstances (work, moving house, vacation, open proxies, etc.) that can cause one's IP to change and because one who seeks to have such a CU done on him will invariably be knowledgeable enough to change his IP address through some means to hoodwink it. Thus, Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're saying because I know about Checkuser I'm automatically guilty? Oh for gods sake, this is ridiculous. Looks at my edits; I was answering questions at the Reference Desk when he posted that welcome message. That is the only reason I made a comment on his RFA.
- No, I'm saying that Checkuser cannot prove empirically that you aren't KingofFilm. Knowing about the Checkuser tool isn't something one gets sanctioned over. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're saying because I know about Checkuser I'm automatically guilty? Oh for gods sake, this is ridiculous. Looks at my edits; I was answering questions at the Reference Desk when he posted that welcome message. That is the only reason I made a comment on his RFA.
- Simply put, Checkuser cannot prove one is not someone else because of various circumstances (work, moving house, vacation, open proxies, etc.) that can cause one's IP to change and because one who seeks to have such a CU done on him will invariably be knowledgeable enough to change his IP address through some means to hoodwink it. Thus, Checkuser cannot prove a negative. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- English isn't my first language, I'm having trouble understanding what "prove a negative" is supposed to mean.
Dataport676 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The unblock template didn't properly display my text, so I've posted it below, please read there
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please note that repeated abuse of this template will result in removal of your talk page access. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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've been busy in real life so I haven't had a chance to follow up on this, so I apologize for the lateness of this message. I will try and explain the situation in detail, as my previous unbock attempts were unsuccessful. I am currently blocked by User:PeterSymonds "per WP:DUCK". I contest this block as being false; I am not User:KingofFilm, nor have I abused multiple accounts. I created an account on the 5 March 2010 to answer a question on the Reference Desk. One minuet later User:KingofFilm, a registered user since 27 January, posted a message to my talk page asking me to vote on his RfA. He posted identical messages to three other users [1] [2] [3]. I went to his RfA page and posted a message of support to be friendly. It was obvious he wasn't going to succeed, being a newish user with few edits, but I wanted to be friendly nonetheless. Because of this one edit, I was then blocked by User:PeterSymonds "per WP:DUCK", as he believed I was User:KingofFilm. I am not User:KingofFilm, I have not abuse multiple accounts, and the evidence used for this block is not valid as I have explain why I edited his RfA.
Dataport676 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What? How does my request to be unblocked above not address the reason for the block? Did you actually even read what I wrote?? Maybe you missed it because I couldn't put it in the unblock template because it broke the formatting. My request to be unblocked, including a full account of the reason for the block and why I believe it to be unfair is just above this unblock box, but below the previous one (ie it's the block of text not in a template box). It addresses all of the concerns raised in above the denial comment. Please read it
Decline reason:
Yes, we read it the first time, thank you. We do understand that not all people are as technical, and carefully consider all comments made on the entire talkpage related to the block and unblock. For future information, if you include any links or URL's in your unblock request, you need to a 1= in front of the reasoning - it will look like this: {{unblock|1=...}}. The reason that your unblock request was not accepted is because the reason certainly did not fit logically with normal behaviour - indeed, that would be turning WP:RFA into a joke, which is counter to common sense. The duck test therefore passed with flying colours. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Dataport676 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, this entire situation makes no sense to me. I explained, in detail, the steps which led to me posting one friendly message on his rfa. I don't see how anything I did was disruptive to wikipedia or block-worthy. For gods sake I posted one message of support to him, just one, and that's what I'm blocked for? I am truly sorry if this action was disruptive to wikipedia, I didn't mean to be disruptive and I sure as hell won't ever comment on anyones rfa ever again after this incident.
Decline reason:
Yeah yeah yeah. Talk page access revoked. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 18:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Yeah, KoF here. Dataport is innocent. K? -KingOfFilm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.123.213 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)