User talk:Deconstructive Editor
Deconstructive Editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I stated, immediately upon being asked, that I was the same editor as had edited from my IP adress. (Vice versa actually, as the IP, I stated I had created the account.) thereupon I was instantly blocked. However, in reviewing your policy on IP editing, this does not seem to be a blockable offense or violation of any policy at all. I did not ever attempt to create the impression these were two distinct individuals editing. I merely edited while logged out for a couple weeks because I had had some issues with logging in (some error message about thread hijacking), got frustrated, gave up, and simply edited under the IP address. At a discussion to which i contributed, one of my collaborating editors said something like “I wish IP would create an account.” So i logged back in. Now I am blocked, despite havint violated no rules. Is this justice?Deconstructive Editor (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Knock it off! You are so very obviously a sock of Kingshowman (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2018 (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.
(edit conflict) Comment by blocking admin: The user was not blocked for having both an IP and a registered address. There is nothing wrong with that. The user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Kingshowman based on behavioral evidence. I did not at the time see that there was an active SPI request, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman, but I concur with the comments presented there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reply: I perused your link. No "evidence" of anything, let alone wrongdoing, was given. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Deconstructive Editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am nobody’s sock. It has been conceded above that I did not violate any rules by editing as an IP without logging in. The previous block review obviously was not a fair and impartial review of my unblock request. despite talk of "evidence" no evidence has anywhere been cited in support of the allegations against me. When I review the link to the so-called “investigation” of my guilt, I find no evidence or anything that could reasonably be described as an "investigation." Rather, I discover that the party calling for the investigation, the final judge of the investigation, and the user reviewing my unblock request are ALL THREE the same person(!!!) How can this possibly be considered a neutral, 3rd party review of whether my block is justified? And how can one describe a procedure as an “investigation” which consists in a single individual accusing me without presentation of any evidence in support of their claims, claiming my guilt is obvious, and then immediately closing the investigation and declaring me guilty- all by the same person? And how can this same individual then cite this self conducted "investigation" as grounds for declining my unblock request? I reiterate that I am innocent of all accusations against me (indeed, I am innocent of all wrongdoing full stop) and that my continued block is likely to cause significant harm to the encylopedia via deprivation of valuable contributions and knowledge. (Even my accuser appears to admit that I have backed all of my claims with many references.)Deconstructive Editor (talk) 6:59 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
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.