User talk:Karuba333
Karuba333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why did you block me in such a way? I am not sure I am able to defend well here since I am not acquainted with all such rules and with IPs issues. I only know that I did nothing bad! I contributed to several articles, and I remained involved in a sockpuppetry issue about the page of Lorenzo Iorio, which I contributed to. Please, restore my account. There should be an error. I did not make any damage or disruption, and I made, I think, productive contributions. I do not think it is admissible I've been blocked only because some admins did not like some contributions of mine about Iorio.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (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.
Karuba333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- The block is, actually, not necessary since I did not make any damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Please, check my contributions
*
1. I understand that, because of my ignorance of basic facts about IPs, I was blocked because of an alleged sockpuppetry involving another editor. I certainly will pay more attention in future. However, I did not even receive any warning on my talk page, which would have helped me.
2. I will not continue to cause damage or disruption since I never did so.
3. I, actually, did several useful contributions on different topics. For example, I was improving the page on Iorio according just the suggestions by some admins who wrote in its talk page. Please, take time to check what I actually did. Thank you.
Decline reason:
To respond to your points: 1)In sockpuppetry cases, especially where Checkuser has confirmed it, we block without warning. 2) Sockpuppetry is inherently disruptive. 3) Useful and productive edits do not mitigate sockpuppetry in any way. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2011 (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.
Karuba333 (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Karuba333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not the same person using two different accounts. I already specified that I made a mistake since I am not expert of IPs and so on, and that I will avoid to make again the same error. Please, give me a second chance; after all, you may easily block me again indefinitely if you will catch me again. I have to defend myself. That admin wrote that I am Iorio, and that I made various sockpuppets for the second time, as in the past! It is false! You say that sockpuppetry is inherently disruptive, but this case was due a mistake, it was not intentional! I did none of the typical disrupting actions of sockpuppets. Please, judge my actions, not my alleged intentions without giving me the possibility of defending! I read on Wiki rules about blocking: "Blocks should be used to:
1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; 2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, 3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.
Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now—particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." All this is not my case at all! I am victim of a prejudice, and I pay consequences of actions by other people in the past not connected with me.
Decline reason:
No, you are a victim of your own repeated use of multiple accounts to feign consensus on article pages and deletion discussions. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. Since you've demonstrated 100% likelihood of repetition, you have damaged your ability to edit Wikipedia beyond repair. I've double checked the checkuser findings, and they are unambiguous. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:43, 9 March 2011 (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.
Karuba333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Could you, please, show in detail the evidence that I would be the same person as Michoball, not to say about the past hordes of sockpuppets? Could you, please, show in detail that I am, actually, Lorenzo Iorio? What do really show your checkuser findings? If you spent a grain of your time to really go through the facts, instead of just superficially passing here, taking a look, and automatically refusing my request you would notice that, actually, I did NOT partecipate to ANY deletion discussion, I did NOT even partecipate to the deletion review, I simply discussed fruifully with some admins some technical details on the TALK PAGE (NEITHER A DELETION DISCUSSION NOR A DELETION REVIEW) of that damned article, which I contributed to. I repeat again that I made a mistake, but you should give a second chance. It took a minute to you to block me before, I do not think that I would escape you if I will do something unfair! I ask to be judged from my actions, past and future
Decline reason:
I am afraid that, since people who abusively use multiple accounts almost always lie about it, we have to weigh what they say against the evidence. In this case, what you are saying just doesn't persuade me that I would be wise to override a block with such strong evidence of the abusive use of multiple accounts. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2011 (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.
Karuba333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well, what is such a strong evidence that I am the same person as Michoball, L. Iorio, and the past socks of the deletion discussion? The only things you have in hand are just some ranges of IPs, on which you built up your fantastic world! I presented facts, not speculations as you all, instead, do here. An the facts are that I did not vadalize anything, I did not alter any consenus, deletion review, deletion discussion, I did not take any disruptive action, on the contrary. Simply, I am the victim of actions taken by other people and of a dispute around Ioriom whose article I tried to improve according to the suggestions of other admins. But you are all only able to repeat always tha same stuff, without knowing anything about the facts because they simply do not interest you. I always try to discuss with you, but all of you simply refute to consider the REAL eveidence of the FACTS. Since all of you here base on the (alleged) past to infer the future (wonderful! Never heard of a certain D. Hume?), well you should give me a second chance, since my (REAL) past actions point EXACTLY AGAINST YOUR PRE-FABRICATED CONCLUSIONS! Stated simply, unblock me, please, and let's see what happens: if you will catch me again (and I have no doubts that I will be under very strict observation...), you will easily block me again indefinitely. That's simple!
Decline reason:
I see nothing here that persuades me to unblock, and the sock investigation appears to be finding more usernames. I would also advise against SHOUTING, as that will not endear to to anyone here. I would suggest that your next unblock request is much more carefully formulated as five unblock requests in a day is getting excessive and you are likely to end up with page being blocked. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (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.
- I'm a little puzzled by your dismissal of the ip evidence. If you really aren't this user, then it's someone using your ip. If someone else were editing from my ip, I'd be very concerned, because as far as I know, there's no one else in the house right now. Is it a burglar, editing from your closet? Someone in the driveway, stealing your wireless signal from just outside the house? And how does this person know what your interests are? If you don't have any idea who the other person is editing from your location in your areas of interest, then you have the most disturbing stalker I've ever heard of. I think I'd be a lot more worried about that than about being blocked, if I were in your position. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, FisherQueen, I have to admit that it was my sister two years old..I wanted to defend her..It was embarassing..We studied together. Can you understand, now? I am not at all a stalker. Karuba333 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)