User talk:Korax1214/Blocked

This is an archive page showing the last version of my talk page when I was blocked, due to being falsely identified with a Canadian user on the basis of similarity (which unfortunately doesn't actually prove anything — ref. the article on Ramsey Theory, assuming there is one). It is an historical document and for this reason must not be further edited. Thank you.

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Korax1214/Blocked Trebor (talk) 12:13, 8 June 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).

Korax1214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet (indeed, the allegation doesn't even mention the other user of which my account is supposedly a clone), and my edits were good-faith edits for exactly the reason stated; nameely that where I come from, "Afro" is a hairstyle, and using it as a combiner is discouraged. I hereby request that the block duration be reduced to 30 days (and restore the Inactive template to my user page while you're at it)

Decline reason:

Making all those page moves before talking with other editors about them first stirs up enough worries on its own but the timing of your contributions, which are so like those of a blocked editor, makes me think it is very likely you're one and the same. Lastly, asking for the block to be shortened to 30 days only further worries me: If you're not him, why settle for a 30 day block at all? You can ask another admin to review this by using the unblock template again but if you abuse it, this page will be protected. — Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 8 June 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.

(N.B. I made a mistake in the above; I meant Historical, not Inactive. Now back to the archived page. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 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).

Korax1214 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I suspect that any non-small batch of edits is likely to have similar timing to another of about the same size, so the timing doesn't prove anything (there is such a thing as coincidence); and the point I've raised ("whatever happened to taking a worldwide view?") has not been addressed (a term is not "the correct term" if it is wrong in even one place); finally, the request for shortening was for medical reasons, although the "logic" being shown in these admin responses doesn't make me feel inclined to elaborate (what, other than coincidence, gives anyone the idea that I am remotely connected to the unnamed other user?). This sort of thing is one reason why I've always preferred anon edits if possible, and at this rate always will.

Decline reason:

I concur with Gwen Gale; the contribution pattern matches. — Sandstein 20:55, 8 June 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.

"the contribution pattern matches"? For goodness' sake, go look up "coincidence" in a dictionary (a real one, such as the OED; Wiktionary suffers from the same probs as the rest of this site). Also look up Ramsey Theory/chaos theory; similarity is bound to arise in things such as this from their very natures, not because it actually means anything. -- 217.171.129.75 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Another mistake of mine; chaos theory deals with self-similarity, not similarty between different things. Oh, well. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note to reviewing admin: this user is believe to be a sockpuppet of temporarily blocked User:CanuckAnthropologist. ANI thread. Trebor (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense. How can I possibly be a sockpuppet of a Canadian user when my IP clearly belongs to a UK ISP? Don't you people even know how to use WHOIS? -- 217.171.129.71 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard there are one or two Canadians living in London. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone reading this: Is there any way to "defang" the {{unblock}} below, so it gives the proper appearance but doesn't cause this page to fall into the Unblock Requests cat? -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

{{unblock|per Trebor above and discussion thereof, clear false positive; since User:CanuckAnthropologist claims to be Canadian, a WHOIS check on his IP will presumably confirm it to belong to a Canadian ISP, whereas mine is of a UK ISP; and the last I checked, these two countries were over 3,000 miles apart at their closest}}

Ref. the above, a bit of digging into the contribs pages turns up [this] edit by User:CanuckAnthropologist, done less than an hour before [this] edit by User:Korax1214, and if (as I suspect) the former turns out to have been done from a Canadian IP, this proves that this block was a false positive, unless perhaps one of these two has some means of transport which can go over 3,000 MPH. -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And comparing those two users' Contribs pages, it's clear that this block is a false positive in any case; User:Korax1214 goes back to 7 April 2007, and User:CanuckAnthropologist only to 23 April 2008; so although it's possible (just not true) that the latter is a sockpuppet of the former, the reverse is not possible (unless this user has a time machine as well as his superfast vehicle already mentioned). -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the admins editing this page flouting the guidelines?

Or does the requirement to not post libellous statements, not apply to admins?

This user is not a sockpuppet but a suspected sockpuppet — a very different thing, which has its own category. At present the "case" for sockpuppetry appears mainly to rest on similarity between editing patterns (look up Ramsey theory, people) and on ignoring the fact that these two users are on widely-separated continents (which could easily be confirmed by doing a WHOIS on ther respective IP addresses, which sadly only admins can do).

If this "case" is proven (which it won't be, since one of the axioms of logic is that no false statement can be proven true by any valid argument), then the "suspected" can be deleted; but until then, doing so would be libel. -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2008