User talk:NotThatJamesBrown

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Randomized (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this accusation in the way advised at notes for the suspect. Please do not add notices such as this to my talk page again. If you wish to discuss something, start a new section below. Remember to be civil and assume good faith. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==[reply]

"If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you should respond to the allegations, unless they are obviously frivolous. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations."

Perhaps you would like to respond to the allegations. Randomized (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to offend you, but "they are obviously frivolous". I have no intention of discussing this issue with you anymore. Any future discussion should be about improving articles. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==[reply]

A checkuser will be requested. Let's wait and see what happens... Randomized (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten me, this is against WP policy. I do not care whether you call for a checkuser. However, I access WP through many different proxies and I usually use a web anonymizer service. This is why I have an account. I have not broken any rules. Please leave my talk page, as I have asked you already. I am trying to contribute positively to the article. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==[reply]

When did I threaten you? It sounds like your running out of excuses. Randomized (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any excuses, and nor do I need to. Your behaviour towards me has only been threatening and bombastic, and resulted in disruption of the electrical sensitivity article and talk page. I was referring, however, to you specific threat above of a "checkuser" after I had already answered you and asked you not to comment here again. This matter is closed, please drop it and lets move on to improving wikipedia - that's why I joined... ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==[reply]

-yawn-. If you've got nothing to worry about then you won't mind the checkuser being performed then will you. Randomized (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomized (talk) 14:22, 21 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).

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

Request reason:

Following advice on the block page I emailed the blocking admin. He asked me to post a request here using this template. From my email: I'd like to stress that I have no other accounts, and I use anonymiser services due to the nature of my work and travel. I have also been very busy recently so I haven't checked in on wikipedia for quite some time. I'd like to sort this out, so if you can tell me what you need to know I'd be happy to oblige. If you perform a checkuser you will see I have logged in from my home IP to write this, however I don't want my IP to be in the public domain. Best wishes, James Brown

Decline reason:

Evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unprovoked is pretty damning. Compound that with the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NotThatJamesBrown and the fact that you are, for the most part, using Tor nodes, and the result is that this unblock request is denied. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:36, 24 April 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.

Reconsidered

I have re-evaluated my block. Based on the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Unprovoked, which produced a Likely result, I think this block should remain in effect. Jehochman ^Talk 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]