User talk:Happy Couple2

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

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).

Happy Couple2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block seems to be a retaliation for edits Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence, and not to prevent abuse, in violation of blocking policy WP:BLOCK. The block came after I retired, and seems to be designed to suppress or discredit information presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence. The reason for appeal is that I can fix my user page to restore "retired". Looking through histories and posting to articles related to buffalo and/or Ken is not a reason to block account. Besides, Kdbuffalo was not blocked, and even if this were a sock of Kdbuffalo (which it is not), it is not an abusive sock, and hence, allowed. (Original) blocking admin seems to be acting on behalf of of Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

Decline reason:

Substantial abuse of sockpuppets as documented below and elsewhere — B (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2008 (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.

Other notes:

~~Kdbuffalo is not blocked~~ (see below).
Orangemarlin diff that preceeds block.
blocking admin attempting to use his block of me to remove evidence and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Evidence.[1]
MastCell (talk · contribs), who may have seen earlier versions of this appeal, has quite unjustly blocked Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs). [2][3], perhaps to ex post facto justify my block. This other use was blocked today, more than a year after his last contribution to this site.[4] Happy Couple2 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New users generally don't leap into outstanding arbitration cases, so it seems that this account is very likely a sockpuppet of somoene -- this naturally leads to the questions "of whom?" and "is this abusive?" I'm not inclined to give this a unilateral review, for or against unblocking. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Happy Couple2 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that an uninvolved user would take a strong interest in an arbitration; the resulting assumption is that you are probably a user involved in the dispute which led to the arbitration, in which case a throwaway account could be used to escape scrutiny or create false senses of support or neutrality. If that's the case, this sock seems to be abusive in nature. Reply? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Also, please review my contributions to the arbitration case, in which I presented information, read a response, and ~~struck~~ my contribution, all in good faith. Happy Couple2 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to assume such good faith if there were some rational reason you're unable to participate with your main account. I don't believe I've seen such a reason, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rational reasons would include retalation, including blocking (see my block log), Rfa oppose votes,[5], etc. Let me know if you need more possible rational reasons. Happy Couple2 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I think we're chasing a red herring here. I think the relevant policies are: WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:BLOCK. Happy Couple2 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is unblocked, I think it should be with the condition that he/she is restricted to operating a single account. The alleged puppeteer hasn't edited in over a year, so calling it abusive sockpuppetry is a stretch.--B (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B's interest in unblocking this editor goes in the face of this data: here. I started SSP cases against User:VacuousPoet: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (4th) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet. When I started the first case against VP, I did not know he was a sock of kdbuffalo. So although there have been no SSP cases against kdbuffalo, there have been numerous confirmed (by rfcu in most cases) SSP blocks against VP and his various socks. So, if Happy Couple2 is a sock of kdbuffalo, and B contends that there have been no socks of kdbuffalo for a year, that is factually incorrect. My error in identifying the sockpuppeteer a year ago (but identifying kdbuffalo's sock, which is itself is a puppeteer) should not be cause to allow Happy Couple2 to continue editing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (5th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]