User talk:Gregathon
Gregathon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sockpuppet. This literally came out of nowhere.
Decline reason:
You need to address the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MosMusy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2021 (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.
Gregathon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is possibly the most vague and absurd reasoning I've ever heard. First of all, I have never written about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict once (I briefly wrote a comment about one of the sources cited in the talk page about Massacres of Azerbaijanis but have not edited the article about the war itself, so this is completely false). It's true that I have written about Sexism but thousands of other users have as well. Are you gonna ban them as sockpuppets? Again, I thought this was based on IP address similarity, not vague similarities between users.
Decline reason:
The similarities are not vague. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2021 (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.
Can an administrator please address the evidence I gave above?
- Yes, but you can only have one open unblock request at a time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, but can the first one that I sent be addressed? Much appreciated. Gregathon (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Gregathon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well, at least explain why the similarities are vague instead of just plainly asserting that they are. I am not a sockpuppet and I already explained why. Please address what I'm saying as opposed to simply dismissing it. In a criminal court, if it is proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty. In a civil court, it is when there is a "preponderance of evidence." Your investigation has provided me 3 pieces of evidence that I am a sockpuppet:
1. I make similar arguments on a talkpage about Sexism. (Completely vague similarity and not even true, as Greglawl was saying that primary sources were better than secondary sources whereas I was pointing out that none of the sources listed were secondary sources and a proper review of the literature would be better evidence. Also, dozens of other people were contesting the same line so are you gonna ban them as sockpuppets as well?)
2. I have a similar interest in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. (I don't, as I explained before, I briefly wrote a comment about one of the sources cited in the talk page about Massacres of Azerbaijanis but have never once edited on the article about the Nagorno-Karabkh war itself as Greglawl did, so this is a completely vague similarity and mostly untrue)
3. I linked a Google Doc with a similar author. (I looked at the investigation and two completely different documents popped up. The one that I cited and the one that Gregalawl cited were two completely different documents and I could not identify the author of either of them. The one I cited is a very commonly circulated one and I have no idea who the author is).
Thus, all of the evidence that you have cited I have addressed. You can't make a permanent ban of someone unless you have proven that they have done something for which you haven't even provided probable cause, you have just laid out a hunch of suspicion that I am a sockpuppet. As Mz7 pointed out, there is no conclusive connection from a technical standpoint as our IP addresses are completely different. You can't go around banning people until you have good and conclusive evidence to support a ban.
Decline reason:
The behavioral evidence is fairly convincing, and after reviewing their talk page contributions, I think that an WP:ACDS block would likely be justified even if the sockpuppet concerns were totally moot. signed, Rosguill talk 05:59, 10 March 2021 (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.
Gregathon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What do you mean behavioral evidence? What are you a forensic psychologist? You can't arbitrarily do permabans of people without proof that they did it and then justify it by using "behavioral evidence." Why would I create a sockpuppet of myself? What is the motivation for me doing such a thing? You literally said in the investigation that we are in different locations by IP address, so why would I move my Internet to another building just to create another account from another one which I got banned for in order to offer no contribution and just add comments to talk pages? Also, in WP:ACDS, it literally says: "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy." So, I must have done some violation of the ban policy for this to take place. Other than disputing highly controversial positions by asking for higher quality evidence and the supposed sockpuppetry (which is baseless and false), I have not violated any rule. This is a misuse of your administrator power to make arbitrary bans not grounded in anything.
Decline reason:
I was going to decline the last request, but someone beat me to it. So I will just say that we're not some sort of government body that has to meet some standard of proof you define. We have our policies, and to enforce them it is not necessary that we prove the things you demand we prove. Why would you create a sockpuppet? Well, why should we have to figure that out to prove to our satisfaction that you did? In fact, why should we even have to care? The point is that another account with a name very similar to yours, that writes a lot like you, tried to use a very similar source in support of a minority position on a talk page discussion for an article about a subject that attracts controversy. I find this behavioral evidence as convincing as the other admins have. Enough for me to accept on good faith the technical evidence that I can't see from the admin who has access to the tool. And to me what you offered in your defense above amounts to distinctions without a difference.
You ask us "Why would I move (my) Internet to another building"? That's an interesting question ... while I have never had Checkuser, I do know enough about how it works to know that it can't possibly determine something like whether two computers or nodes are located in a different building or not.
Whatever. I'm not really interested in what your answer to that will be ... because I know I won't be reading it. I totally agree with EvergreenFir's suggestion that you be denied further access to your talk page as the law of diminishing returns has clearly set in, and I will implement that suggestion once I've saved this. Have a nice St. Patrick's Day! — Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2021 (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.
Gregathon (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment from blocking admin - The behavioral evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MosMusy/Archive#27_January_2021. These unblock requests vexatious and I'd recommend the next reviewing admin revoke talk page access. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dude, I saw the investigation and debunked it. The reason it's getting vexatious for you is because I debunked this investigation's premises and you are unable to address it. Can you please at least put a cubicle of effort in trying to do so? What's really getting vexatious is having your account falsely removed, showing why it was false in front of all the administrators and getting pathetic responses like these. Gregathon (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.