User talk:Lou Proctor

Craig Roger Gregerson

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I'll change it back to the right category when you've been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor User:Chadbryant, I can wait..... 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on blanking your talk page while this issue is ongoing. It makes it look like you're ignoring the other editor and/or you have something to hide - Alison ☺ 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank your talk page in the middle of the discussion of an issue that you brought yourself into WP:ANI. This is not helpful, as there are different arguments that should be weighed. Regards, Phaedriel - 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Chadbryant (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). 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. Alison ☺ 06:08, 4 May 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been singled out for harassment by a user who believes that he owns the article at Craig Roger Gregerson and has manipulated inexperiences admins into doing his dirty work.

Decline reason:

You are blocked as a sockpuppet. You have made no claims that you are unrelated to the vandal known as Chadbryant and so there are no grounds to lift this block at this time. — Yamla 23:21, 4 May 2007 (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 wouldn't call myself inexperienced, but, okay. Grand master ka 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you accepting the comments and accusations of "One Night In Hackney" as fact? I looked up Gregerson's Wikipedia article after reading about him on CrimeLibrary, saw that he was in the wrong religion category, and fixed it. I even provided a source for it. For that, I have been labeled a "sockpuppet" of a user who obviously got under some people's skins a few months back. That is not fair. I don't care about whatever beef people have with "Chadbryant". Lou Proctor 23:12, 4 May 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've made it quite clear that I am not anyone's "sockpuppet". In the interest of fairness, I think someone without an obvious grudge against "Chadbryant" needs to review this.

Decline reason:

No you have not. "I'm not a sockpuppet because I said so" is not a legitimate rebuttal. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:14, 5 May 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I find it hard to believe that "guilty until proven innocent" is a value upheld on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

It's not. But in a situation where a particular banned user is known to have used sockpuppets, and one or more of those sockpuppets have very recently been blocked, and a new user shows up who just happens to share a very similar point of view on very similar articles, the defense needs to be a little more robust than "I said so." Per discussion on WP:AN/I, several users are of the opinion this account seems like a sock; I know that the sockpuppeteer in this case has been a problem before. Contrary to your suggestion, the users you're dealing are neither new nor inexperienced administrators. If you'd like to build a more robust case on your behalf, do feel free. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2007 (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.