User talk:ImNotObama

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Barack_Obama. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Comments that I made were about the political positions section. Hardly vandalism.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am in the metro Atlanta area, not Chicago. Please unblock now. This is very dangerous because I wrote for calm and MastCell blocks me. This shows that people are banned just because administrators do not like people, not because I did anything wrong. If you do not unblock, please immediately ask for a checkuser between me and Kossack4Truth and unblock when it comes back. I just checked Kossack4Truth's edits and his and mine overlap and the checkuser said he is in Chicago according to ANI. MastCell's logic is that anyone who supports a banned person is a sock. But I did not support him, just asked for calm and reduction of block based on my limited review that an edit was reasonable

Decline reason:

Based on your brief, three day history at Wikipedia, you have resumed controversial edits that have landed other editors and proponents of a lopsided POV an indefinite block. Your editing pattern is similar to that of other recently blocked editors that were discussed at the Administrators Noticeboard (Incidents). In addition, your first non-article edit was to post an unblock request at indef'ed Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Your contributions speak for themselves. — seicer | talk | contribs 00:25, 13 November 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.

I think your unblock request, and your history, speak for themselves, but another admin will be along to review your request. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being nasty for blocking me. I don't even support Kossack, just trying to be a voice of reason. You are making people mad at Wikipedia. That's not what administrators are suppose to do. What are you going to say when the checkuser shows that Kossack was editing in Chicago the same time I was editing a thousand miles away? A very honourable person would block himself in compensation but you won't do this. I hope you will be kind and say sorry. I am skeptical you will even do that. Why are you so mean? ImNotObama (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I see that you have not submitted a checkuser request. I am very disappointed at you. Even if you were suspicious, you should have submitted a checkuser request before blocking. Please unblock me yourself and submit a checkuser request ImNotObama (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that ImNotObama seems to assume that administrators (and editors generally) are unaware of technologies like telnet and ssh and vnc (and those Windows things like Citrix and Remote Desktop). I don't doubt that K4T/WB/CB/etc. are able to connect to machines in Atlanta while sitting in Chicago. Hint: I can do the same thing, as can millions of others of editors who are even slightly technically savvy. LotLE×talk 08:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of such technologies. I am also aware that guns exist. Does this mean you've killed someone then, Lulu? Same logic. --Rebroad (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, same logic is this: The fact that I do not have a gun on my desk now is not very good evidence that I have not shot someone. LotLE×talk 20:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at rebroad's talk page. I thought it might be of interest here.

ImNotObama’s wikipedia career in summary (b. 11/8/08, d. 11/12/08):

1st edit: Long, annoying and contentious criticism on Obama talk page, followed by call for up down on consensus 2nd edit: nonesense sentence on own userpage. 3rd edit: All cap demands about what people MUST do on obama talk page on an issue that had already been talked and argued to death 4th edit: Enters own votes on own consensus call made in first ever wikipedia edit. 5th edit: Launches an attack on wikidemon at AN/I while simultaneously replacing a “resolved” template with an “unresolved” one. Fails to mention this in edit summary. Edits 6-20: Alternates obstinately and unproductively stirring trouble on Obama talk-page withh pushing commas around in random articles, both characteristic of the BfP cast of characters. Edit 21: defends self from vandalism warning. Edit 22: contests indef blocking of proven BfP socks at AN/I Edit 23: makes a perfect unblock template request at proven BfP sock K4T’s talk page with a spurious reason for unblocking. Edit 24: makes a contested edit to Obama main article (with the characteristic BfP misleading edit summary) absent consensus on talk page. BLOCKED Next few edits: Whining about check users and “proving” this or that in a manner thoroughly typical and diagnostic of the BfP class of socks. Then you took up his cause.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review requested

Hi ImNotObama. I've requested your block is reviewed as it's not clear to me why you've been blocked. The least the blocking admin could have done (IMHO) is to have referenced your edits that were the cause for the block. From looking at your edit history I've not yet been able to find anything to warrant a block. Cheers, --Rebroad (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ImNotObama for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]