User talk:UTYVB8

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).

UTYVB8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What good does it do to block me? All I did was show up and helpfully upload an image that people were wondering about.

Decline reason:

Not according to your user history, which shows no uploads. So there's stronger evidence you're a sock. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 3 March 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.

Comment for reviewing admin: this appears to be UTYVB7 (talk · contribs) who in turn ~~is apparently Trowbridge tim (talk · contribs)~~ had several other sockpuppets. –xeno^talk 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that I am not Trowbridge tim. I am UTYVB7, though. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Checkuser said otherwise~~. <shrug> –xeno^talk 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read more closely. This account was linked to several others (correctly in all cases), but not to Trowbridge tim. That account was, however, linked to 2 others as well. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - thank you for your assistance in this. –xeno^talk 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to unblock then? I would just like to set a few facts straight in the ANI discussion after which I will gladly disappear again and you can indef away. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please request unblocking from your main account. –xeno^talk 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly have a "main account" anyhow. You mean UTYVB7? As you've hardblocked this account, that will do me no good, as the autoblock from here will still prevent me from editing. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your unblock request is granted the autoblock will be cleared. –xeno^talk 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, not worth it. Insofar as the purpose of blocking is "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm" this block has no purpose. The hoax is gone. I, in fact, exposed it, and I'm not trying another one. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

You've carried out a breaching experiment using false information and socks. In my opinion the motives were good, and the effect beneficial to be the project, but others will disagree.

I am willing to unblock you. However, I want your parole that:

You will use only one account going forward
You will not insert any further false information into wikipedia whatsoever.

If you are willing to promise the above, I think we might usefully have you on board making positive contributions and criticism.

If you'd rather I unblocked an alternative account, then please indicate which with your acceptance of these terms.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this individual is already editing as David Lindsey (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]