User talk:L33t-Geek

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).

L33t-Geek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked in reguards to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/71.217.206.152 personally I think the admin that made the decision is prepositioned against me, and there is no real evidence just circumstancial evidence that I have sockpuppet accounts and an indefinate block is unwarranted, I have never done anything wrong, granted when I first started my account I didn't know policy and that lead to some issues but that has been resolved and I have never done anything to warrant a block. To address the issue mentioned by Daniel Case That was posted by 168.156.174.90 check user has not been used to show that I am even connected to this IP which I am not. The most that was determained is that that IP and mine go to name servers in the same city of about 200,000 people.

Decline reason:

History of Kent Hovind shows that there was some sockpupptry or meatpuppetry, as promised by an IP that is likely yours, so you definitely pass duck test. Your edits to that article were disruptive anyway so even if you're not a sockpuppet you're a single-purpose account that needs to remain blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:44, 8 March 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.

But my IP or my account is not part of that is it?--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my edit, your block is being discussed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see, thanks for your help.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:34, 7 March 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).

L33t-Geek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked in reguards to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/71.217.206.152 personally I think the admin that made the decision is prepositioned against me, and there is no real evidence just circumstancial evidence that I have sockpuppet accounts and an indefinate block is unwarranted, I have never done anything wrong, granted when I first started my account I didn't know policy and that lead to some issues but that has been resolved and I have never done anything to warrant a block.

Decline reason:

Per diff linked below stating intent to continue sockpuppetry. -Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 7 March 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.

--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respondants to the unblock request may be interested in this: [1]. And in the edit summary it implied I had some conflict of interest. I am entirely uninvolved in the edit war that is going on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like you already are predispositioned against me, but who know I could be wrong, I guess I should not just assume that, sorry.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:58, 7 March 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).

L33t-Geek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. What is a "sock puppet"? 2. Why was I even blocked for reverting back to some tags that were removed?

Decline reason:

It does appear that you created this account to avoid scrutiny; you edits largely match those of the IP address that was editing immediately before you started. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 4 March 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.

I have requested additional information from the adminstrator that has blocked you. Please be patient while we await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on the situation. I have added an NPOV tag to Kent Hovind because their are several POV statements, I was planning on a rewite and merge but have been blocked from editing. I also tags a copyvio on Image:Kent_Hovind_Booking_Photo.jpg because being a mug shot it is subject to copyright and I wanted to clarify the validity of the fair use argument. I don't see how honest tagging causes a problem. Also as far as the sock puppet thing, was reading Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and this is my only account though it was registered not long ago and some of my edits spanned off to my IP account, I now just use this account to keep my edits togehter since my IP is dynamic.--L33t-Geek (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see all of that in your contibutions history. I have contacted the blocking admin. Please await his response. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK will do, in the mean time can I get some clairification the the 3RR, because the tag was constantly being removed so I had to readd it, to me this I viewed as vandalism and so reverted without reguard to this rule, but I know it was mentioned on my IP talk page, so my question is would my edits be violating the 3RR, because this is the only rule I could think that may have been violated while I have been trying to work on this issue.--L33t-Geek (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you were blocked is because you were posting both as l33t-geek and and anon - and using both to pile up the reverts on Kent Hovind, attempting to bypass the 3RR.

You were told that what you were reverting was NOT vandalism as there was a fair use rationale behind the copyrighted image you were removing. If you had issue with the fair use rationale you bring it up on IfD, NOT on the article in question. Hazillow (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats Ifd, how is it diffrent from what I was using?--L33t-Geek (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you were doing was removing an image that was uploaded to Wikipedia from its article; you were not removing the image itself. IfD is the process of removing images from Wikipedia that you feel are copyvios/inappropriate/etc. Hazillow (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Thanks for clairifying, glad I know that now.--L33t-Geek (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|So I cannot register an account? I don't understand hoe registering an account would cause any issues, could you please explain further?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have unblocked you, because you seem to be unlikely to be a threat in the immediate future. Please, for future reference, be aware that, while it is OK to create an account, it is not OK to switch between two different accounts, or to switch between being logged in or logged out, to avoid scrutiny or otherwise "game the system". Doing so is known as sockpuppetry in the Wikipedia parlance, and is not allowed. Please continue to edit constructively from now on, and please avoid getting into edit wars with other users. If someone removes or otherwise undoes an edit you put in place, do not put it back, instead engage the person who removed it by asking nicely on their talk page, or by inviting them to explain themselves on the article's talk page. That is more in line with expected standards of behavior at Wikipedia. Continuously reverting back to your preferred version is considered a violation of the Three-revert Rule and is likely to lead to another block. Good day.

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.217.206.152 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Baegis (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for stong evidence of maintaining inappropriate multiple accounts (aka sockpuppets) per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.217.206.152 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.217.206.152.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

I received your mail. While I understand that there is no 100% proof that it was your socks, this account's behaviour wasn't nice either. Please file another request for unblock. I suggest you to honestly reveal at least some things you wrote me. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

{{unblock|This is not my first Wikipedia account, I held another account over a year ago and have not edited from it since. I had a good edit history with the account. I don't want to make my previous identify publiclly known because though I had a good edit history I kinda left on awkward terms. If an admin wants to know, they can email me and I can provide them with the username. Checkuser should confirm the account is mine, or I can reply to the email from that account. Also I was blocked because it is assumed several IP's and account were vandalizing an article I was working on, putting my unfinished rewrite up over the live article. No Checkuser to my knowledge has confirmed this, AFAIK the only think Checkuser has confimed the vandalsizing IPs and users are all the same. My previous account I think goes to show that I don't vandalize and thus the vandals are not my sockpuppets. In fact I also have the account on wikinews where I was at once a Sysop and was awarded for fighting vandalism.

Concidering their is no technical evidence the vandal accounts are mine and the fact hat they put"live" the rewrite of Kent Hovind which I have mentioned on the talk page is not finished, I think I should get the benefit of the doubt here, especially when you add in my history under my old wikipedia and wikinews accounts.}}

As I have responded to unblock requests in the past from this person, I will not respond to this one directly. However, to any admin responding to this request, please be fully aware that the sockpuppetry allegations against this user do not relate to an old, dormant account, but to recent disruptions caused by multiple IP addresses and usernames, as outlined in both an SSP and a CHU case. See above, earlier unblock denials for full info on these cases. Otherwise, feel free to act on this unblock request as you see fit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I have expanded my reasoning to cover your concerns.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you no longer a wiki sysop? Can you link to something supports your answer?

They de-sysop inactive users after some time on wikinews. See here its still only just a policy proposal but they seem to be following it already.--L33t-Geek (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You were unblocked then reblocked 3 days later. How do we know you won't give us reason to do that again? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first block was a misunderstanding of policy on my part, as well as a misunderstanding since I created this account in the middle of a series of edits which made it appear to be sockpuppetry, but since creating this account, I only edit under it.--L33t-Geek (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - As the original blocking admin, I would support unblocking this person under the stipulation that they a) avoid edit warring and b) restrict themselves to using this account only to edit. Further conflict involving this editor, or further sockpuppetry problems, should result in a return of the block. If another admin wants to unblock, I would support it with the understanding that, given the problems in the past, this account is under a higher level of scrutiny than the average editor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User understands problem and agrees to edit only under one account.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:ReliableSource

Template:ReliableSource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-16t09:22z 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]