User talk:Jgb11

Your block

You arrived at Wikipedia and jumped directly into a talk-page discussion, continuing the arguments of a blocked user. That gets you an indef block. If you want to argue that you're here to edit constructively, that's one thing, but simply arguing that you're not User:YerYeller but just some random guy who happened to show up right on time to pick up where he left off doesn't cut it. Mr. Darcy talk 20:25, 15 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).

Jgb11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by MrDarcy, supposedly for being a sock puppet for another user. I am not, and a check of IP addresses will confirm this. I did in fact become a user in order to make constructive edits. In fact, my first actions were trying to engage MrDarcy in a constructive discussion regarding proposed controversial edits. I, like many other users, was directed to Kerwin Danley's entry because of a controversial call in the World Series. After the page was vandalized several times, someone drafted a viewpoint neutral and properly cited summary of the controversial call. Someone, I think MrDarcy but I'm not certain, reverted to a version that didn't include a reference to the controversy. I signed up in order to discuss the proposed changes, but MrDancy accused me of being a user he recently banned. Simply put, this was an unfounded allegation and entirely untrue. Even though I only attempted to engage MrDarcy in discussing the manner, MrDarcy chose to block me indefinitely rather than engage in the discussion. He jumped to a false conclusion, and rather than admit his mistake by unblocking me, he continues to rely on this unfounded speculation - preferring to believe that just because I disagree with him, I must be the same person who dared to disagree with him before.

Decline reason:

I agree with MrDarcy that you are in all likelihood a sockpuppet of YerYeller (talk · contribs), as indicated by your contributions. — Sandstein 07:32, 16 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.

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).

Jgb11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is what went down: Kerwin Danley makes a controversial call during the World Series. I was watching the game while simultaneously reading a baseball forum. Someone on the forum linked Kerwin Danley's wikipedia page, pointing out that it didn't take long for people to express their discontent with the controversial call. The next half-hour or so was filled with constant vandalism. But responsible user's quickly reverted to the appropriate version. A little later user YerYeller made an edit that was supported by a few references (articles from mlb.com, among others if I remember correctly). This edit was seemingly serious, as compared to the earlier pure vandalism. However, it was also rejected and the page was protected. I went to the user page to see if there was any discussion about this proposed edit thinking that it must have just been caught up in the rush to correct the vandalism. There was a discussion, and I joined it. This was the first time I ever registered or attempted to make a contribution to Wikipedia. I didn't attempt to edit the actual entry, I just tried to apply the logic employed in other similar circumstances to this one. Rather than engaging in the discussion, MrDarcy concluded that I deserved to be blocked. That I joined the discussion shortly after another user was blocked was purely coincidental, and not surprising considering the number of users who had visited and edited the page at the time. I understand that users have the responsibility of blocking obvious sockpuppets, but this was far from an obvious case. Moreover, it simply isn't the case. The incident is behind me and I only recently discovered that I was blocked when I attempted to make a minor edit to a completely unrelated entry. I apologize for taking the same stance as a blocked user. Had I know that this was per se grounds for banning, I probably wouldn't have tried to discuss the issue.

Decline reason:

I agree that this account is a fairly obvious sockpuppet. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 16 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.