User talk:ActivExpression

ActivExpression is

offline

“

Can you edit? Yes you can!

”

User:ActivExpression	User talk:ActivExpression	User:ActivExpression/Awards	Special:Contributions/ActivExpression	User:ActivExpression/Guestbook	User:ActivExpression/Userboxes	User:ActivExpression/Sandbox	User:ActivExpression/Welcome
User	Talk	Awards	Contributions	Guestbook	Userboxes	Sandbox	Welcome

Archives

Ask ActivExpression for help if needed! Please put the == == outside your talk title to me. Reply to me when I speak to you or you can make a note on my talk page so I know.

Write below this line

Chess

ActivExpression vs. World

Chessboard

Moves

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

World to move...

#	ActivExpression	World
1	e4	c5
2	Nf3	Nc6
3	c3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

It's your turn, ActivExpression. Want to move or not? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move soon. I haven't been active. Activ Expression ^Sign! 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

Well, my brother is socking again and I wasn't active for the last month. I got my IP block exemption removed from this account because I didn't answer the admin's question for over 5 days. If you want to see what administrator and I are saying, press this link to see more info. I need IP block exemption to keep editing on Wikipedia, but right now, I can't do anything right now. Thanks!

Decline reason:

I note you still have not answered that question, and your first edit since then is right after another sock appears. I'm sorry, I'm trying to assume good faith, but something is amiss here. Kuru (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2010 (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.

Didn't you read it? I wrote stuff. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 18:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know whats going on, then go to this link. Thanks! ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 19:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you explain things yourself instead of linking to my talk page discussion(s)? And also, anyone knows that you "wrote stuff". I'm writing "stuff" right now. Your explanation is very unclear, and your questions make no sense. Explain clearly and openly, and an admin may give you IPBE. I requested that you should have IPBE on my talk page, but that does not mean that you will receive it. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

24.17.200.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Constant abuse - {{checkuserblock}}

Blocking administrator: Alison (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: No. Enough is enough. Now directly blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop using Killerprey23 because I don't know what to use it for. I didn't report my little brother because I thought I needed evidence to show that he is my little brother. I need IP block exemption to keep editing. Thanks! ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question I cared about was this one: "You added him to your "family members" list 23 minutes after the account was created and 56 minutes before his first edit?" Please clarify; at the moment I don't agree to IPBE in any way. You and your 'brothers' appear to be playing a game. Kuru (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems obvious to me that you are just operating multiple accounts, and your claims about brothers, which you make on at least two accounts, are not believable. And I also would in no circumstance give IP exemption. To do so would nullify the express purpose of your block. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't very active in the last week of July so I barely got time to edit, and also my parents have put time limits on when we could log in. At that time, my time was almost over so I couldn't report him because I had like 1 minute left which if I tried to report him, I would have been switch usered. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that ActivExpression is stating the truth about his brothers, one of which is MC10. In response to Kuru's question, it does seem like they are playing a game; however, as they are living in the same household, it is very plausible that ActivExpression would know about his brother's creation of a new account before he actually makes an edit. -down load ׀ sign! 04:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Killerprey23 just to Huggle because I wanted this account to start editing articles so I don't want to interrupt the article editing by Huggling. So I asked the Toolserver to create an account for me so I can Huggle with the other account. As you can see that I enjoy Huggling. Almost half of my edits are from Huggle and the other half I talk on talk pages and edit articles. And on Killerprey23's account, I Huggled most of it and did some of the edits on articles to get autocomfirmed user. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:47, 15 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please read what is above. Ask me more information if needed. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 10:06 am, Today (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

I am not convinced by what I have read, and see no reason to unblock this account. The user of this accounts appears to be using multiple accounts, and so the block seems to be valid to me. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:52, 18 August 2010 (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.

You still haven't answered Kuru's question clearly: "You added him [Jack Ebs] to your 'family members' list 23 minutes after the account was created and 56 minutes before his first edit?" Of course that it's very likely that you would know about your brother's sockpuppet account; why did you not report it? I also state that Jack Ebs is not you, but you need to answer Kuru's question, clearly and precisely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are informed above, and it is not denied, that MC10 is one of your brothers. His edit immediately above this one suggests that this is not the case. I remain persuaded that you are using alternate acconts, and denying it, which is not allowed.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, ActivExpression, Madden NFL 21 (Jack Ebs), and MC10 are brothers, and it is confirmed on all their userpages. Per WP:FAMILY, ActivExpression and MC10 have disclosed the connection, and both edit constructively. I see no reason why ActivExpression should be blocked as long as he edits constructively and discloses his connection with his brothers. After all, MC10 is not blocked for sharing an IP address with his brothers.

I do know all three brothers in real life and can confirm that Jack Ebs is not ActivExpression's sock; as they live in the same household, there is nothing suspicious about adding the account to his "family members" list before it actually makes an edit, especially if he may be being taunted by his brother. I see no reason why ActivExpression should be blocked. -down load ׀ sign! 04:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, "he's being taunted" is not an explanation for that edit. If he's coordinating with a blocked user, that's a problem. He seems to have avoided an explanation - I'm still open to hearing one. If you can see where MC10 has had advanced knowledge of his brother's vandalism, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why this is on hold waiting for a comment from me. This whole situation has wasted a ridiculous amount of time, and I'm not going to waste any more of mine. Even if there is a legitimate family connection here, the abuse of multiple accounts goes beyond that. I've removed the "on hold". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am ActivExpression's brother; that is why, by WP:FAMILY, I have listed his account on my userpage here. As I have stated already, ActivExpression is not Jack Ebs. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have to agree that ActivExpression isn't doing anything wrong. It's obvious based on evidence that these Wikipedians are in fact family members, and they have disclosed that fact. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've all heard of WP:AGF. ActivExpression isn't socking to violate policy. He's just an innocent victim of a CU scan. ~Nerdy Science Dude 03:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to believe him as well but It seems like he has not edited for a while. MC10, can you personally ask him if he is retired?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still on but just not editing anymore. Can you get an administrator? ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 04:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider making another unblock request and explaining the situation again, as you were clearly unjustly blocked. -down load ׀ sign! 23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you should make another unblock request. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jp gordon and Kuru will still decline the request even though I explained it clearly. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, after they review the comments here. You could also ask for an uninvolved admin to review this case. (By the way, I fixed your indentation.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone else to get an uninvolved administrator to check. Obviously Kuru and Jp gordon are probably watching my page. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask for an uninvolved admin to review your case when you make your unblock request. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to ask someone in specific? ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. As I said already, ask for an uninvolved admin. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Can I have an uninvolved administrator come and review this? Since we have a new router, we have a different IP address, so we can create accounts again. I heard from MC10 that MaddenNFL21 is creating more sockpuppets. I don't know what to do now, so I might as well wait until another uninvolved administrator come and review this.

Decline reason:

email arbcom BASC because you still have some explaining to do and without access to checkuser data ordinary admins will struggle to resolve this in your favour Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:12, 12 September 2010 (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.

Unsurprisingly, I still have not yet seen an answer to the question I asked a long time ago. I understand fully that you have another child in the family that is editing maliciously. What I do not understand is how you seem to know about the accounts he is using before they edit. Your brother seems to be confused about what the definition of an uninvolved admin is; if we have a content dispute somewhere, I would challenge you to point it out. Again, can you please clarify the question I have now asked half a dozen times? Thanks~ Kuru (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Madden NFL 21 created Jack Ebs, I saw him create the account, but because we only have two computers, and MC10 was using the other computer, I could not do anything about it. Once Madden NFL 21 stopped using the computer, I added Jack Ebs to my Family Members list. I thought you needed evidence to report a sockpuppet, so I did not report Jack Ebs. Kuru did I answer your question? ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 00:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with what ActivExpression is saying. Once again, he is not Jack Ebs. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me lay this out for you, since both you and your brother are still confused about why we're asking questions. We have a fairly unique situation here, where someone is playing the WP:BROTHER card and other trusted users (namely download here) are willing to vouch for the family situation. So we assume good faith that there truly are three users here and one of them is disturbed. Fine. Both of you were granted a fairly rare privilege in the IPEXEMPT tag to avoid to recurring IP blocks that would pop up as we deal with your sibling. Unfortunately, both of you seemed fond of randomly creating a ton of alternate accounts for no particular reason, making things a little harder to keep track of. Fine. Then it appears that both of you are aware of accounts your brother is using that you do no feel the need to divulge - this starts to erode the trust placed in you. Since you are in an awkward position sharing an IP with a recidivist vandal, you will need to do what you can to make sure that there is 'no confusion between you and him. Any goofy behavior, like adding his accounts to your user page before they edit, sure do look bad. Offering an explanation for that should have occurred immediately, not six weeks later. Does it make sense that the "assume good faith" is going to wear thin when you act strangely? Kuru (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I do not understand what you mean when you state that I seem "fond of randomly creating a ton of alternate accounts for no particular reason, making things a little harder to keep track of". I've listed all of my accounts on my user page. Most of the accounts are doppelgangers, with a few alternate accounts and one bot. I do not edit with Editprotected (talk · contribs), and I edit with MS10 (talk · contribs) in public locations to prevent someone keylogging the password to my main account. I am writing and finding useful code for MCBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), but for now, it is not used. Originally, I had hoped that if I listed one of Madden NFL 21's accounts on my user page, some admin would come along and (hopefully) block his sockpuppets. Obviously, that did not work, and as I know now, all I need to do is report to WP:SPI. (I have currently reported one of his newer sockpuppets here; he created an account "MC1000Bot", apparently trying to deface or impersonate me. Didn't work so well, didn't it?) I maintain that ActivExpression and I are not sockpuppeting, and that ActivExpression should be unblocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are talking about and I think your right, having 1 account will be good enough so that it will not confuse other people. I only have like 3 other accounts that I don't really use often now. As you know, one is Killerprey23, another is Beaver Lake Bulldogs, and the last one is ThinkerBot which I'm probably gonna use anymore. Killerprey23 is the only account that I kind of edit with until I was blocked. None of the other accounts I use to edit with. None of these accounts have doing any vandalism. I understand why you think I'm Jack Ebs and I think it is suspicious too. I will not goof around like that anymore and I will report if I see MaddenNFL21 creating more sockpuppets as soon as possible. I've noticed that our IP address has been hardblocked. So 3 months of no sockpuppets, after that I will have another checkuser hardblock it again. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 00:08, 14 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have answered Kuru's question and I'm willing to have another administrator review it once again. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 03:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are simply lying. Please see my comments below, there is no doubt in my mind that you are abusing multiple accounts. Tiptoety ^talk 07:32, 18 September 2010 (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.

Having worked with MC10 in the past, I'm aware of your family situation. If the confusion were just that, I'd unblock you in an instant, because I trust your brother. However, there are a couple of things bugging me: first, I want a list of all accounts other than this one that you've edited with and second, and most importantly, why the hell didn't you report a known vandal (I don't give a shit if he's your brother or a complete stranger, it's irrelevant here) to SPI or AIV or... anywhere? Why didn't you inform MC10, who, I'm sure, knows how to track down an admin he trusts? Assuming you're not socking (which I'm willing to do), you don't seem to be treating this very seriously. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I use Killerprey23, Beaver Lake Bulldogs, and the last one is ThinkerBot. Beaver Lake Bulldogs is the account that I don't use and same with ThinkerBot. I used Killerprey23 until I was blocked by Jpgordon. MC10 knew Jack Ebs before me. The recent account that was created by MaddenNFL21 I was wanting to report, because it was MC10 and MaddenNFL21 on the computer, I couldn't do anything about it because I was blocked but, MC10 reported him to the SPI as soon as he created the account (which I was stupid enough not to report Jack Ebs to the SPI). Also, ThinkerBot is blocked because of its username, so once if possible if I'm unblocked, I will have to change ThinkerBot's username. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 03:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really thought you were going to get away with using a bot account that is not even flagged as such and request unblock and username change through that account? We're not stupid. –MuZemike 05:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ActivExpression does not know how to program, so he won't be running a bot. I recommend keeping the bot account blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this. FWIW, I'm siding with Kuru here; I'm not seeing that you can be trusted to continue editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ActivExpression's old username was RuneScape Adventure. Is that what you were asking? -down load ׀ sign! 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would ask that question. He changed his username on the userpage. His "backup account" was his alternate account that was never used; it was blocked indefinitely during the first block of ActivExpression (originally RuneScape Adventure). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he states that "Beaver Lake Bulldogs is the account that I don't use and same with ThinkerBot." Although grammatically incorrect, he declares that he does not use the two accounts. What's the problem if we keep those two accounts blocked and limit ActivExpression to one account? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difficulty is that user:ActivExpression, above here, says that he edits as user:MS10 in public places; and on the userpage of user:MC10 a userbox says that this is an alternative account of user:MS10. So you are in reality all the same person, and there is no justification for lifting the block. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be uncivil here if I'm sounding like I am, but I see no place where ActivExpression has stated that he edits with MS10. Only MC10 has stated that, as shown above. If they are all the same person, would I be vouching that I know them all in real life? Would it even be possible for a single person to operate that many accounts (sometimes even at the same time), and convince me to support them? -down load ׀ sign! 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if they are the same person, why isn't MC10 blocked as well? Both users are practically in the same situation - both are constructive editors, yet one is blocked and one is not. -down load ׀ sign! 02:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have tried my best to take a look at this situation from an outsiders point of view with a fresh set of eyes. There are just too many things that do not add up, and I simply do not buy the WP:FAMILY card being pulled. I re-ran some checks and have come to the following conclusion:

Confirmed:

Testing 0987130498710951 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Cessna 406 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jack Ebs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Killerprey23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
God of Light (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ThinkerBot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MC1000Bot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MathCoolBot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lexusis3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MS10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MC10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
MS10 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ActivExpression (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I am not buying that three "different" people all with the same editing pattern just happened to edit from the same public library computer as you have said above. As such, I am blocking all of the above listed accounts. Enough games. Tiptoety ^talk 07:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't believe this is happening. Does my statement that "I know all three brothers in real life" mean nothing? Why would MC10, an editor in very good standing in the community, with almost 20 thousand edits and has edited since 2006, decide to make sockpuppets on the same IP address and risk getting banned? In addition, had you properly look at contribution history of the accounts, you would have noticed that sometimes MC10 and ActivExpression are both Huggling at the same time! Would a sockpuppeteer really go through all that trouble? Even a bystander would have noticed that the editing patterns are much too intricate for sockpuppetry to be taking place. -down load ׀ sign! 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing editors have socked before, it is called "good-hand, bad-hand accounts", and same with the editing at the same time, I have seen socks do that too, and even engaged in dialogue with one another. Tiptoety ^talk 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: It's not a public computer; they actually have a few home computers. -down load ׀ sign! 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, but they have also edited from a public IP address (as one of the accounts states above). Tiptoety ^talk 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that about the "good-hand, bad-hand accounts" then have you seen the majority of the people doing it? Also, if MC10 and I would be the same people, then why don't have have autoreviewer and accountcreator? I just recently asked for reviewer, I was trying to work hard to get an autoreviewer. I didn't even want accountcreator because I don't even know how to access the ToolServer, but MC10 does. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Well this is just insane, especially when another editor in good standing (I hope), me, is vouching for them. Would anyone care to suggest any action to take for MC10 and ActivExpression to appeal this block? -down load ׀ sign! 19:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be brought up at ANI. I see no reason to suggest that MC10 is a sock/ sockmaster.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 19:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited on a public computer before, only our home computers. MC10 uses the home computer and the library computers, so when MaddenNFL21 was in school, he was editing there because there is always free time. I have told you, MC10 has never sockpuppeted before. MaddenNFL21 was creating accounts when he was in school. I don't even know some of the accounts being created on that list such as Testing 0987130498710951, God of Light and, Lexusis3. I don't know who these accounts belong to. I've seen MC10 edit since 2006 and then he suggested to have me edit too, so he taught me how to edit articles, revert vandalism, and etc. MC10 has taught me a lot about Wikipedia and he has always been very helpful. I see no reason why MC10 should be blocked. It's not his fault that MaddenNFL21 is creating sockpuppets, he creates a lot at school (I heard from some of his friends). I'm eager to hear more from other administrators. I will reply ASAP. Thanks! ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 20:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, you might be better off talking to ArbCom over e-mail. Those of us who aren't Checkusers have no idea what the technical evidence shows, and I count no less than four CU's involved here to some degree (Jpgordon, MuZemike, Tiptoey, and Alison). There's not much an "ordinary" admin is going to be able to do here—or by extension, ANI. Courcelles 20:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Courcelles on this: only an admin who is a CU can really deal with this, and so here/unblock-en-l/ANI probably aren't the correct venues for discussing this. Email ArbCom and request an unblock there. As to "I have told you, MC10 has never sockpuppeted before." - I have two responses to that: firstly, you might not know even if he did; secondly, if you are his sockpuppet then you would say that so that the MC10 account could be unblocked and you can continue socking. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is always a possibility, but what's the likelyhood that I am MC10's sock? In my opinion that would be impossible, given our contribution history and editing patterns. In addition, given what I know about the three brothers, I find it doubtful that MC10 is the sockpuppeteer. -down load ׀ sign! 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was addressed to ActivExpression who said "I have told you, MC10 has never sockpuppeted before" - I don't think that you have said that, Download! As to "that would be impossible", only a CheckUser could confirm or deny that! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ActivExpression, when you see your brother MC10, tell him that I support you guys. I see no evidence of you two socking other than that one mess up above. You guys are victims IMHO. Remember, you should be treated innocent until proven guilty.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you support us, but all the CU and administrators don't. So it doesn't change much, but if you were an administrator and CU, then that would be better. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have been talking for a long time, let's go ahead and have Jack Ebs involved. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now this is just getting out of hand, MC10 is one of the best contributors I know, he's a helpful and very kind person whose intelligence I respect. Why would someone with his level of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and intelligence engage in an act of obvious sockpuppetry? It doesn't make sense. A simple CU can't prove nor disprove anything, I thought we were meant to WP:AGF considering MC10's high standing and reputation amongst the community. I'm with White Shadows and Download here, I do not support the block at all. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • Cork? • Glass • 4:23pm • 06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I read Tiptoety's message, but again my question is this. Why would someone with MC's level of intelligence knowingly engage in such a stupid act of sockpuppetry, I don't know why he'd do that and what he'd gain. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • Cork? • Glass • 4:27pm • 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fridae'sDoom, the theory is that MC10 is using the "good hand bad hand approach". The fact that he has been editing constructively is said to be the "good hand", which hides the fact that he is in fact operating the "bad hand" accounts - for precisely the reason you, WhiteShadows and Download are saying "Oh, he's been good - he can't have anything to do with the bad accounts". Also, playing Devil's advocate: "Why would someone with his level of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and intelligence engage in an act of obvious sockpuppetry?" - if MC10 is the sockmaster, then the answer would be "because I can, and I can get away with it for all this time mwah-ha-ha!". As to the merits of whether MC10 should be unblocked or not, I'll leave that to admins with access to CheckUser data, who can look at the editing patterns and suchlike. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this "good hand bad hand approach" has happened with other sockpuppeteers in the past, though I do not think they have had another "trusted" user vouch that he/she knows them in real life - this is the case with MC10. Why would I be lying that I know the three brothers in real life, unless I were a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of MC10? -down load ׀ sign! 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Casliber's userpage he can vouch for the identities of other users he's seen some of them being crats, so if download can vouch for the identities of the three brothers why then does no one believe him/her? Is it because they're not an admin? I think that letting ArbCom or a CU Admin deal with the case is a good approach to take and would do less harm, however, MC10 has been editing for longer than his brothers and I think that his time on Wikipedia speaks on behalf of his case.

I know there have been several incidents where trusted users (sometimes admins) abuse multiple accounts and I am aware that just because a user is a valued contributor does not mean that they aren't guilty of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry confirmed through a simple CU. Even if he did have good/bad hand accounts it's hard for a person to be who they aren't, it genuinely is sometimes people break and give it away, I mean look at Essjay's inconsistencies with his identity as noted in the Essjay controversy article, even though his case was a lot easier to spot (being a tenured professor at age 20 something is unlikely, near impossible). —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 3:20pm • 05:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, considering the other arguments if MC was aware of the sockpuppetry he would have filed an SPI case to avoid himself the trouble of going through a ban and in submitting the case he would have made it clear that ActivExpression was not very familiar with policy and has since learnt. I originally took MC's side but unless anyone has hardcopy real evidence then my stance on the matter is Neutral I still support MC and believe that his block was unfairly handed to him and that he was unfortunate enough to be on the wrong end of the stick. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:16pm • 07:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This account was also involved in the mess about a year ago. I did not previously recognize that this was also one of the legitimate people editing from that IP because several renames had taken place. This account's old name is nothing like its present name, and that is what threw me off at first.

Request handled by: J.delanoy ^gabs _adds

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I did it

I was the one who got you unbanned (by accident!). I even confessed to reverting this whole flaming mess here. Next time, help your "brother" report those Madden NFL 21 socks as they come before listing them in your family members profile! -- 92.23.7.73 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Userpage

What's the point of this page? It's completely useless and only serves to increase confusion. Its contents can just be copied to the main user page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the userpage too messy and I can't find something easily. Though it might be a good idea, but I'm gonna stick with this right now. Unless, you can have someone delete the other page. ActivExpression ^Talk _Guestbook 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it deleted you can always stick {{db-u1}} on the page you want deleted. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:39pm • 07:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your Admin Coaching request

Your submission at Admin Coaching has been removed from the request list, as requests where the submitter has not visited the page for at least 6 months (or been inactive for at least 4 months) are removed.

You are welcome to re-submit a request should you wish to, but please note that you are expected to regularly check the page (and to update the "last visited" field of your request) to show your continued interest in the project. If you do re-submit, please carefully re-read the instructions for submission as they may have changed since you last visited!

As noted on the project page, there is an on-going backlog with the project, as so few admins are currently coaching. This means that you may have a long wait for a response (if you receive one at all).

If you no longer require admin coaching, I hope that you continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia!

Regards, elektrik SHOOS 04:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there ActivExpression, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:ActivExpression/Status Chart.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6teen All Characters listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 6teen All Characters. Since you had some involvement with the 6teen All Characters redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!