User talk:Inniverse
This is my talk page and I do not wish to use it as a forum for public discussions as it has been so used in the past. For that reason I will not reply to messages in this forum. If you must post a necessary message, do not be insulted if I read and remove it. My removal of your post is my acknowledgment that it has been received. If I choose to reply, I will reply on your talk page (and it goes without saying that I will be watching or otherwise monitoring your talk page after I post a message). Inniverse (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Inniverse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It appears that no one has read, or taken into consideration, my comments posted in the ANI on September 11th. I have demonstrated conclusively that I can not be the same editor as Moorsmur due to the concurrent editing that occurred on June 30th. It is also abundantly clear that KWW has a conflict in this matter as he was the blocking admin who then had his block overturned after the review, and as such ,he should not be involved in deciding the issue in this matter.
Decline reason:
The SPI includes the CU statement Likely that the following three accounts are socks of each other, based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence - and it was clarified there that this included the current account. As such, the block appears to be valid and so I am declining this unblock request. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:05, 14 September 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.
Inniverse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has previously been confirmed that (due to my editing location) a checkuser will always provide a “false positive” (i.e. “likely”) result when matched with Azviz, just as it would for any other editor who lives in the same million-plus population city as I do. KWW and MuZemike are both aware of this unfortunate fact and are using it to have me blocked even though the editing evidence conclusively shows that I can not be the disruptive editor Moorsmur. Check the editing records for June 30th! The block is improper because it was placed by an editor who has a clear conflict in this matter, there is no connection between myself and Moorsmur, and it is also improper because it is indefinite. Even if Moorsmur were my sock, then pursuant to policy, Moorsmur should be blocked indefinite while the sock master should have a definite block period imposed.
Decline reason:
This clearly needs admins with checkuser to review. Please address your unblock request directly to the arbitration committee Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 17 September 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.
- You'll have to explain to me why simultaneous editing proves anything at all. Are we to presume that you aren't capable of using two browser windows at once? That you cannot own a laptop and a desktop? That you never edit from an area where multiple computers are simultaneously available? Note that the problem here is not that you matched with Azviz, but that you matched with two other accounts.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I confess full ignorance of your case, but I must ask how temporary block periods for deliberate sockpuppetry (I realize you are disputing this occurred, of course) are pursuant to policy. I am not aware of any particular policy that dictates sockmasters should necessarily be blocked temporarily rather than indefinitely. This may, however, be me overlooking something. - Vianello (Talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is it possible for a diff that shows that "It has previously been confirmed that (due to my editing location) a checkuser will always provide a “false positive” (i.e. “likely”) result when matched with Azviz, just as it would for any other editor who lives in the same million-plus population city as I do" (or would a CheckUser be required to confirm this?) - is there a very large rangeblock in place (please do not post details here of specific IPs for your own privacy)? Or does the whole city share the same small range of IPs? I live in an area with a population of about 1/3 million - and yet even a rangeblock with a fair range would not get most of us - in fact, I'd be surprised if it affected many people in the street in which I live! Could you please give us some more information to enable us to see that this has been confirmed -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's a fair statement that Inniverse would always match Azviz at this point. Checkuser data against Azviz is old, and all we really have on Azviz himself is the geographic region, not a particular IP range. That's not the real issue, though: even given the vagueness of data on Azviz, the data on Moorsmur and Macpl is fresh. Here's our situation: Inniverse has always been a good behavioural match for Azviz, and, despite all the discussion on the original block, no one ever disputed that. He was unblocked after confirming his real-life identity to Georgewilliamherbert. Now, we catch him socking . We could block him as a sockmaster, or, since rampant socking is a part of Azviz's behavioural pattern, block him based on new confirmation of him behaviourally matching Azviz. I chose the latter.—Kww(talk) 23:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Did Inniverse confirm past IP addresses to Georgewilliamherbert? That would help. Inniverse was asked, but refused to publicize them. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not privy to the exact contents. GWH has been asked to forward any information he might have to Arbcom in case this winds up there.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Inniverse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I truly believe in the Wikipedia project, and that is why I am making one more appeal to the reasonable editors of Wikipedia. (My other option would be to just open a new account, but then I would be editing in violation of a block and I want to work within the rules, not against them.) I am requesting that an uninvolved admin take a serious and objective review of my block. First, the blocking admin, KWW, has a conflict of interest in this matter, and therefore, it was improper of him to block my account (his previous block of my account was reversed over his objection). Second, the reason that the blocking admin has given for the block (that I am a sock puppet of Azviz) is contrary to the findings confirmed here (that I am not a sock puppet of Azviz). Third, I question the reliability of the checkuser data when the clerk has provided no details of the alleged links between the accounts. In other examples I have seen the clerk write details of the checkuser data when an IP match is not “confirmed”. The type of information I would be very interested in seeing is, for example, do the IP's for these accounts belong to the same IP range, IP provider, or do they just geolocate to the same municipality, province, or region of the country. The reason that I am asking for this further information is that I find it unusual that no further comments were given by the checkuser, other than it is “likely... based on checkuser data and behavioural evidence”. As has already been pointed out by a non-involved editor here "likely" does not equal "confirmed", and he time stamps for the different sock edits that Inniverse refers to suggests that Kww's block is incorrect.” I cannot help but wonder if there is any possibility that the scenario scripted between Moorsmur and Macpl is a setup. It is no secret that my place of residence is in Calgary, which is a high-tech city of over one million people. I have had no involvement in any of the articles that either of these accounts have been editing, and it has been conclusively demonstrated by time stamps that Moorsmur and Inniverse are different editors. MuZemike's past allegation that I am a sock of Azviz has already been confuted, yet here he is again accusing me of being related to accounts Azvis through two accounts that I have no relation to. It appears to me that my only “crime” has been to be previously active on the “deletion patrol”, and that I may have been overzealous in my removal of some prods. Since being unblocked several months ago, I have stayed away from over-involving myself in the deletion process of articles, but even so, I have been blocked by the same admin once again. I suggest that because my home city has been publicly disclosed it has made me an easy target to be linked with anyone else who geolocates to the same city as me. A sober second look at all of the facts leading up to this block will reveal that this block is unfair and unjustified. I request, in the spirit of fairness and good faith, that I be unblocked.
Decline reason:
I appreciate you wanting to work within the rules. As you have ALREADY been advised, you cannot be unblocked via an unblock request; you must make your case directly to WP:ARBCOMM. You have been advised of this multiple times, and repeated requests will not change that fact. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 20 October 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.
- Pointing out that the unblock summary was a bit misleading: The process you went through with Georgewilliamherbert has not actually established that you are "not Avziz". Amalthea 20:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Transformers spacecraft for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Transformers spacecraft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Transformers spacecraft until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Claritas § 08:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The article George Frilingos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Appears to fail WP:GNG - bowler hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Brandon Qualischefski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Appears to fail WP:GNG - bowler hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of George Frilingos for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Frilingos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Frilingos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The article Natalie Shelley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable athlete. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of List of Transformers spacecraft for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Transformers spacecraft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Transformers spacecraft (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Surface to Air (film) for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface to Air (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.