User talk:TheBrokenSky

RfC reason

Responded.じんない 03:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:Fragments of Jade. The offer I made to you on User talk: Akari Kanzaki is still valid, but this nonsense has got to stop first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet! What, is this some kind of conspiracy? Some nonsense has to stop alright, but it's got nothing to do with me. How long do you intend to let this go on? You can't keep accusing people at Erigu's whim and banning them. Did you even read my post and look into it? Because if you did, you would see I'm right. Erigu is nothing but a coward and a bully. He has no interest in improving the articles. Instead of joining in discussions, he targest the people who start them or join them, solely for opposing him. Yet his talk page doesn't have a single warning about this, or the fact that he antagonizes people until they fight back, just to make them look bad. It's pretty messed up what's happening here. I'm emailing Wikipedia about this as well, as soon as I get the chance. This makes over twenty people banned because Erigu claimed they were socks when they opposed him. I wonder how many people will end up getting the same treatment as me and them before someone finally gets a clue. TheBrokenSky (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet, and there is no proof supporting this. I was targeted soon after joining because I took interest in a dispute over an article title. When I asked user Jinnai about the RfC for the discussion he had created, user Erigu appeared and started to antagonize me, calling me by someone else's name, insisting I was a sock, and generally being very rude. I tried to ignore this user and continue talking with Jinnai, but for every post I made, Erigu would quote parts of it and make nasty comments. Finally, I got fed up, especially as an admin was aware of the situation and encouraging him, so I defended myself. Black, the admin who banned me, decided that this was proof enough I was a duplicate account and blocked me, even as I tried to point out what Erigu had done to make me appear guilty-antagonizing me until I got sick of it and defended myself. I am not a sockpuppet. My only interest was to improve articles of things I'm interested in, which is what I've been doing since I joined, up until this happened.

Decline reason:

You are clearly not being honest with us about your connection to these other accounts. So, no unblock request based on that dishonesty can be granted. AMiB has made you an offer, and you'll have to get honest and deal with it directly. Mango juice^talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (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.

Disengage from Erigu, let the Wild Arms thing rest for a while, and drop the veiled accusations. Do these things and I'll unblock FOJ or whichever sock you like as long as you stick to it, and we won't need to play sockpuppet whack-a-mole any more. Alternately, you can keep up with this, and edit only so long as someone doesn't notice that you're back again. Your choice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in Erigu. I couldn't be happier if he would stay the heck away from me. Veiled accusations? I didn't say anything that was not true. I mean what I said on this talk page and yours, and there is more than enough evidence to support it, since s=he did it for each of the individuals he claimed were sockpuppts, including me. As for the Wild ARMs dispute, I hoped to clean up those articles, and I will not be forced out of taking part in the discussion because Erigu would rather accuse than have a civil discussion. But you seem to be overlooking what I am saying here. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. I joined when I noticed the mess the Broken Sky articles where in, and while cleaning up some other articles, I happened upon the RfC. You are entitled to your opinion, but you should not be able to block me solely because you think I'm a sock. Innocent until proven guilty. Defending myself and an interest in a dispute does not make me a sockpuppet. You can't go around making accusations like that with no solid proof, then offering a plea bargin like the other party is guilty. TheBrokenSky (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a checkuser POV, the following are a

Confirmed match for each other:

TheBrokenSky (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Akari Kanzaki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And both of the above are a

Possible match for at least one account blocked as an FOJ sock:

AllPurposeCultural (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can keep looking into this if needed, but that's probably sufficient for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is very untrustworthy from what I hear, and there have been allegedly a lot of "confirmed matches" for the users involved with this case. I am certain that either someone is stretching the results to label us as the same or that the admin who did the Checkuser is lying. Proof of this is the fact that I know I am not anyone other than myself. And there's no one else here who could be. Also, that statement is contradictory to what has been said in the past. According to the admins in charge of the previous Checkusers, all nineteen of those accounts allegedly had the same IP, which is why they were banned as duplicate accounts. The above statement reveals that as a lie. TheBrokenSky (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you have some alternative explanation for your sharing an IP address with Akari, I am all ears. Unable to comment on previous cases, not having been involved in them. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation, since it's not true. I said that in my post above. We don't share an IP. Checkuser is reliable, and it was apparently used to falsely prove that the other accounts all had the same IP addresses, even though you've just claimed otherwise, and several of the accounts ARE IP addresses, all different. TheBrokenSky (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am open to the possibility of human error when interpreting data, which is why I asked you for an alternative explanation, but I see no way in which I could have misread this particular fact: Akari recently edited from an IP which this account had used only three minutes prior, an IP on which no other accounts are active. Are we to suppose that a bizarre software glitch has, out of sheer coincidence, associated these two editors in the database? The rest of your comment does not appear to be directed at anything I've said, so I'm unsure of how to reply beyond that. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to checkuser being innaccurate. I don't know if it is a glitch or not, but from what I understand, Akari was banned before I even registered. Not sure of that, though. Also, your comment doesn't really make sense. Assuming Akari was blocked before I created my account was created, isn't that a contradiction? I would be unable to edit from the same IP as her, due to the block. I wouldn't even be able to create an account. To test this, I just now clicked on the button to create a new account to see what would happen, and I did get an error message noting my IP block. The same thing happens when I try to edit pages other than this one. So, in theory, I should not have even been able to join with the same IP as Akari, let alone post. TheBrokenSky (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be a contradiction, except that this account edited on that IP before the Akari account did, which of course triggered the autoblocking behavior you just described. When you next edited with the TBS account, you'd switched to a different IP, thereby dodging the autoblock either by intention or coincidence. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my IP is blocked NOW, and it was just blocked today-moments ago. I never had any problems editing prior to now. I don't understand about switching IPs. Isn't that something directly tied to your computer? I've been using this same computer since creating my account. And if I used the IP first, then someone else had it, I'd think that would make the other person far more suspicious than me. TheBrokenSky (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just blocked when you edited using this account - this same tool called the autoblock. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, you're wrong. My account was only just blocked, by Black. I had no problems editing before that. TheBrokenSky (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to decline this request, but I have decided to let the discussion play itself out a little bit further and see if anything new develops. But just as an observation, "You have no proof that I'm a sockpuppet!" during the first few sentences of a WP:RFU request is usually my first sign that the person, in fact, is a sockpuppet. I'm playing the odds here; you aren't the first person I've ever seen deny being a sockpuppet after checkuser brings back a positive (and contrary to your insistence, it is quite reliable - especially in the case of a conclusive IP match), you aren't even the twentieth. There are only a handful of checkusers, and they are very, very good at what they do. I'm far more inclined to believe that this is a sock account than I am to believe that it is coincidence that you are editing in tandem with someone that is coincidentally sharing your IP address and checkuser made a mistake. Trusilver 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd to say that AFTER the request has been declined. This is terrible. All I did was clean up some articles, and in the process, came across a discussion that interested me. I asked someone on their talk page for more information, and this Erigu guy comes out of nowhere and starts harassing me. I try to be the bigger person and ignore them, but they quote parts of every post I make and make nasty comments, antagonizing me until I finally defend myself. Then, instead of telling this user to stop, Black blocks me without any proof whatsoever. To make it even worse, he offers to "help" me, but only if I admit I'm some sockpuppet master, refuse to edit the articles I want, and stop bothering a person who hunted me down that I never wanted anything to do with in the first place. That's extremely irritating to me. I'm not a sockpuppet. I doubt most of those accounts are even sockpuppets. Yet you want me to claim I'm a sock and behind all those other accounts as well, which I refuse to do, since it's not true. And I should not have to be punished by avoiding a discussion I find interesting, just because Erigu can't handle having a civilized conversation with anyone who disagrees with him, without accusing that person of being a sock. I am the victim here, and this treatment is insulting, not to mention unfair. TheBrokenSky (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]