User talk:KombatPolice
Notice
[edit]For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North American video game crash of 1983 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 201/1/1987)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/1986%20to%201/1/1987)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Home%20video%20game%20market%20bounces%20back%22)&p_
- 201/1/1987)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1/1/1986%20to%201/1/1987)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22Home%20video%20game%20market%20bounces%20back%22)&p_
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
KombatPolice, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi KombatPolice! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Jakandsig (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
KombatPolice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I find the recent block very questionable. TWO checkusers said that I was possible and not conclusive, the other without a defining reason, said I was highly likely. The other user who was accused was confirmed 100%, and I was not. This shows clearly, at least to me, that I am not connected to the user that I am accused of being an alt of. *In my case, it looks really clear that there was no evidence as I expected, but wikipedian Mark, who has restricted my account for now, decided to block me anyway. Because of this, I will be appealing, and due to what I see on the investigations page, my account should be unblocked hopefully by the end of the day. Because having me not be confirmed, along with 1 odd user claiming I am highly likely, with TWO saying I am not conclusive, does not seem to be enough for someone to declare that "he is guilty" at all. *I expect this be be resolved probably almost as soon as I post this appeal. I also have to ask if the user who blocked this account leave a message on my talk page about how he got a definitive decision based on from what I clearly see, nothing at all. Going over the investigations page a 2nd time, there were TWO users saying I am not conclusive, so I will be changing that. The system in place seems very strange to me the more I look at the investigations page. This should be over in a few hours at best. KombatPolice (talk) 10:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
Possible ≠ 
Inconclusive, and certainly isn't the same as saying the accounts are 
Unrelated. Taking behavioural evidence into account, it seems highly likely that this account is a sock of Jakandsig. Yunshui 雲水 15:41, 12 February 2014 (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.
KombatPolice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not finding this amusing. The lack of any actual reasoning behind the block and denying the block is becoming very irritating. It seems as if the check users are actually not looking at what is provided.
- Yunshui claims the behavioral evidence is enough when I see the clear opposite and those who actually go through my activities will see the same thing. Some of the other accounts are pushing an agenda as clear as day, and yet apparently my behavior is the same? You mean the fact I ask questions before I post edits to other users is the same as trying to use personal attacks to push a POV opinion forward? I even asked editors to look over me. The articles that I edited on are mostly different except a select few as well. What behavioral evidence is there? Because what I just wrote is the only thing that was claimed the the users who opened the investigations in the first place and they clearly are not there. Is reading the last priority when randomly accusing someone of being an alt and then saying "he is guilty"? Looking further into how the system is supposed to work, I clearly see a lack of effort put in.
- I think once again it's pretty clear this this whole thing is a waster of time and I believe someone else more qualified and who actual put effort into their work should review this case. Yunshui your lack of reasoning other than just writing a sentence based on something you most likely did not check on (because of clear as the sky is blue differences) shows are not even close to being qualified to be an administrator.
- I will appeal once more. Hopefully by the end of the day my account will be unblocked. As there is nothing at all anywhere that suggests any similarities whatsoever. The system here is apparently broken, and I will keep going until I get someone who actually knows what they are saying. Or at least when Yunshui actually takes a look before he leaps.
- I think such differences can't be any clearer. Me being blocked from using wikipedia for no reason is something that should not be allowed.
KombatPolice (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Implying that multiple checkusers and an administrator are simply fumbling their way around the project blocking people without reason is probably one of the worst ways to make an unblock request. If you do the same thing again, I will revoke your talk page access.
If you choose to make another unblock request, please do so without using borderline personal attacks. m.o.p 13:31, 13 February 2014 (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.
Arbitrary heading added by an angry admin for clearly malicious purposes
[edit]KombatPolice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Really m.o.p? You really are going to threaten to take my talk page access for NOT making anything near a personal attack and then accusing me of saying MULTIPLE checkusers/admins are fumbling when I was only talking about the one who blocked me the whole time? I mean you literally declined the request because you decided that I was doing something I was not doing. I wasn't even close to making a personal attack at all. I am trying to very quickly, without issues, get this done. Thank You. I am not trying to imply that a bunch of you are abusing anything if that's what you were thinking I was doing. So hopefully that misunderstanding is clear. That was not what i was trying to say. *Now, I see no relation between me and any of those other users. There is no behavioral evidence, which so far seems to be the only thing anybody is grasping off to. The more I look the clearer there seems to be no relation, look at the pure agenda pushing the other users are clearly doing and not even communicating with other users, and look at my activity. you will see that there are no similarities. I think there is a clear reason the other accused user is 100% confirmed and I am not. I only have one way of accessing the net, It would be rather silly for such a simple small problem I have nothing to do with pretty much blocks my whole access to Wikipedia. That would be bad for me. I am hoping that the Check Users look at my recent and starting activity, and I am sure they will see the same thing I am. *As for that one user who left a message at the bottom of this talk page, as I said above, this is the only way I can get online mostly. Especially for most websites. I have nothing to hide at all. This is my primary way of getting on the internet in my area. It's does not seem to be an issue in this case atm for now anyway, seems they are going off of behavioral evidence on this one. KombatPolice (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) Account created day after Jakandsig blocked (2) New user editing nearly identical articles with obvious Wikipedia experience (3) Editing through multiple IPs and proxy like services (4) Similar complaints about Wikipedia community (5) WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:05, 14 February 2014 (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.
KombatPolice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ha, this is silly, but I'll have to choose my words carefully on this one. I'll be addressing OhNoitsJamie's reasons for denial, which seem a bit...questionable. :(1) Account created day after Jakandsig blocked *Really? Day after Jakandsig was blocked? The other user who was accused at the same time as me, was here before me, and since the investigation page was just opened, I assume he was not even blocked yet at that time. which would have meant Jak had been banned quite awhile before I even came. With further inspection of his account, he was banned a SIGNIFICANT amount of time before I came. So i am wondering where you are getting this questionable idea that I came out one day after he was blocked. :(2) New user editing nearly identical articles with obvious Wikipedia experience *I think if one were to look at some of the edits and conversations I was in, you would not come to this conclusion about me "having experience" with wikipedia. As for nearly identical articles you can literally look at my contributions and see that is flat out incorrect. It's not even close. Maybe like 2-3 articles were the same, and even then, the way they were edited is also from what I am seeing, clearly different. :(3)Editing through multiple IPs and proxy like services *Pretty sure I have not been using multiple IPS other than primarily this one ever since I joined not to long ago. Pretty sure there's a mixup here. Unless you are looking at those other accounts, then why would you make this a point on mine? :(4) Similar complaints about Wikipedia community *Such as? What? What does this even mean? :(5)WP:DUCK *Yeah I looked that up. This is totally way out on left field. There are no similarities whatsoever. ::Seems like I have cleared every accusation against me 100%. Unless I am missing something, I have pretty much proven as much as possible there are no similarities between me and those other users. This latest decline is just confusing, and I think that there may be some mixups between my account and theirs because a couple of the above points addressed seem to be for them and not for me. Such as the 1st, 4th, and 3rd points. Seems to me the only reason why I am in this mess, is because I was new and posted on video game sections around the same time jak was causing trouble. I doubt this would be happening if I showed up 1 week later from when I came in. But hopefully all issues have been addressed unless someone had another question I have not yet answered. KombatPolice (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Jakansig was blocked February 3, this account was created February 4. When other accounts accused of being socks were created is not relevant. As for your other three arguments, they basically boil down to you asking us to take your word for these things, which we don't, or else there would be no point in having a sockpuppetry policy. Since you've basically gone in circles through four unblock requests, this is the last one. I am revoking your talk page access so other people have a chance to waste our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (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.
Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Response page
[edit]A word of advice
[edit]If you consider making another request for unblock, I suggest explaining why you have been editing via proxy-like services, rather than directly. As long as that fact is unexplained, there is bound to be a strong suspicion that you have something to hide. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I explained it in the other, other, unblock request. Can't access otherwise. If what I am using RIGHT NOW is a proxy service, as you say, then I need it to even go on most websites on the web. So I hope nobody is thinking i am hiding anything. KombatPolice (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)