User talk:McGurk Johnny

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).

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

Request reason:

Unless somone would like to prove otherwise, I haven't double-voted in that Mfd, neither am I topic banned from interacting with that user, so that pretty much covers all potential avenues for "abuse of multiple accounts" from the 2 edits I've been allowed to make before this block. If the intention is to simply block me for being familiar with Wikipedia, please put that on the public record so I can make a formal complaint. McGurk Johnny (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Daniel seems busy, so I will review this myself as the admin who requested the CU and discussed it with the Checkuser himself. The discussion with the blocking admin is no longer important, as this would likely now be considered a CU block, via DeltaQuad. Based on the CU results confirming this is a sockpuppet of Hackneyhound. I've also revoked talk page access due to their obviously not needing it and the rudeness below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:51, 2 January 2013 (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 saw this unblock request, but it doesn't have enough information for me to adequately review it. What is the username of your primary account? Is this your only secondary account, or do you have others? Which of the legitimate uses for multiple accounts made the creation of this account necessary? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "primary account". This account is not an "alternate" to anything - thus I'm allowed to edit from one account whether it's for one of the reasons on that list or not. Which I was doing until it was blocked and I was falsely accused of having used it for "abuse". McGurk Johnny (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm still deeply puzzled; from your contributions, I don't understand how this can be your first time editing. It seems like there is context for this account and that deletion discussion that I don't understand. I was hoping you could help, but it's okay that you don't want to tell your story to me- after all, we have only just met, and you have no obligation to tell me the whole story of your life at Wikipedia. I'll leave the reviewing of this request to someone who understands the context. I see that User:Daniel Case has put the request on hold, so I'm making a guess that the two of you are already talking privately, and I'll leave you to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in communication with Daniel, he just seems to have decided the better approach to this block was to ask the blocker why he made it, rather than give the victim the third degree based on some very inaccurate assumptions - I never claimed to be a new user, nor was this an "alternate" account alongside a "primary" one, yet you proceeded to interrogate me on the basis that both of those were established fact - so it's not surprisig then that my answer totally baffled you. McGurk Johnny (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He just seems to have decided the better approach to this block was to ask the blocker why he made it". Indeed I did, due to the noted paucity of information about who the sockmaster was (something that happens too often, IMO). And now there is even less doubt than there would have been if we'd had a sock report to go by. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hackneyhound

Please note that this user is a confirmed sock of User:Hackneyhound, as per the checkuser performed by User:DeltaQuad. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hackneyhound. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I'm not Hackneyhound, that's not my previous account at all, so how you came to that conclusion I'll never know. What's certain though is that you erased my edits before you even requested this check, and you're only filing the paperwork after the event, presumably only because you found a result (regardless of it being wrong). As if people didn't already have enough to be fearful about regarding the special status of that user within the Wikipedia 'community'. McGurk Johnny (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But User:McGurk Johnny, you said that this was your only account. Why would you lie? Lying isn't okay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fool Checkuser, and I've never seen anyone get anything over on FisherQueen either (though it at least has to be theoretically possible). Game's up, it would seem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]