User talk:Youup

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock as is being claimed. Do not block my account without verifying by Checksum.

Decline reason:

There is enough behavioural evidence to not require a checkuser. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:13, 2 July 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.

Blocked indefinitely

You are obviously a sock of someone. I do not know for sure who, and frankly I don't care. If you want to contest this block, use {{unblock|reason}}. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 2 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting due process. I have been block based on an unproven allegation, and without fact checking or consensus. I seem to have stepped on someone's toes over a disagreement concerning the deproding and reproding of articles. WP:PROD policy states that articles should not be reproded if they have been contested. Without breaking any policy (actually for following WP:PROD policy) I have been accused, convicted and sentenced as a sock? That is not fair or right. The statement of User:J.delanoy is extremely dismissive stating that I am "obviously a sock of someone. I do not know for sure who, and frankly I don't care". Is that how this process is meant to work? Can an editor be summarily dismissed and indefinitely block by an admin who states he doesn't care to find out the facts? Do not block me without first checking the validity of the accusation. I give my authorization to perform a checkuser.

Decline reason:

WP:DUCK is sufficient, here -- see responses at the AN/I thread you started. If you stopped returning to the same behaviors with every sock, we'd probably stop blocking you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:54, 2 July 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.

Youup (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you know about checkusers shows that you are not new here. Also, you are a sock of either Special:Contributions/TheGriefer or Special:Contributions/Biaswarrior. Or possibly both. No checkuser is needed to prove that. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:18, 2 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I am nobody's sock. I have been blocked for the given reason that I have been accused of being the sock of Azviz, but the above comments by User:J.delanoy accuse me of being a sock of either (or both) Special:Contributions/TheGriefer or Special:Contributions/Biaswarrior. I am now concerned that by removing the prods of previously prodded articles I have stumbled into a pattern of behavior (deprodding?) that is associated with these banned users? And as a result I have been lumped together with these other accounts and have been blocked? Whatever happened to the assumption of good faith? And yes, of course I know about checksum. I can read, and I have read through all of the complaints made about Azviz. He and his socks were banned after confirmation through use of checkuser. The same process should be used here. I am not a new user. I had an account last year, but stopped editing for nearly a year. I have forgotten my login info, so it was easier to just open a new account. I am editing from only one account, and I have not violated any rules or policy. Please confirm the facts of my account by using checkuser.

Decline reason:

Yes you are, no, we don't need checkuser, and you are wasting our time so I'm going to prevent further use of your talk page. This is blatantly obvious to all of us, even if you think you're being very clever. Mango juice^talk 16:13, 2 July 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.