User talk:64.53.2.215

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I really just want to edit pages (not vandalize, not do socks) ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever again."

Decline reason: "Please read Alison's comments below — Chris 08:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Contacting blocking admin since this came as a result of a checkuser ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm the checkuser who ran your case. Obviously you know what happened here and so do I. Nobody else does, for reasons of privacy and, for that reason, there's little anybody can do for you at this moment. Now, you've been socking for - what - over a year now? And have been playing silly games and wasting everyone's time, even having the audacity to manage your own SSP case. All that has ended now, one way or another.

If you want to get unblocked, I think you'd better start explaining what happened here - Alison ❤ 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Listen. All of this was actually not meant to be. I really just couldn't resist the temptation and that's how this mess actually got started. Now, I just want to clean this all up. I did not want to do this, but again, temptation was my enemy. Again, I just want to edit again, I've learned from my mistakes, and I am deeply sorry for all of this to happen. 64.53.2.215 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The apology is good, but Alison asked for an explanation also, so I'm declining it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Umm... My apology was meant for an explanation for Alison. 64.53.2.215 (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine then. If you cannot tell the difference between an apology that was meant for an explanation meant for unblocking a user and a simple explanation meant for unblocking a user, then
This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.
See here and here. If you fix these things, Wikipedia could be a better place. It just wasn't as good as it once was.
Note that I will still be on Wiktionary, but I will not stay here and edit. I will be here, you just won't realize it.
If you don't want to tell people who you are, well they certainly can't help you as they have no background to the case. It's that simple. If you wish to leave, that's okay too, as is your right. You're blocked for abusive sock-puppetry anyway. You're entitled to edit on other wikis, needless to say, but if you keep socking here, people like me will find out and you'll only end up community banned. I don't know why you went off the rails in the first place - fun and power-trippery maybe - but your main account seemed to make lots of constructive edits and it's a pity to lose all that. How and ever, it's over to you know - Alison ❤ 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll try to state as close as I can to explain all of this to you...
I am actually AppleMacReporter. He got blocked by Rlevse because a checkuser found him out. I had no idea all of this was happening. I first wanted to see what would happen, then I got blocked. Then I couldn't resist going back to doing all of this. Therefore, a RFCU was filed, and AppleMacReporter was found out to be the "real master", even though he actually had nothing to do with Huard111 and its subsidiary sockpuppets. All of these were separate accounts, not AppleMacReporter creating Huard series of socks, etc. AppleMacReporter got blocked forever, and I was blocked for 1 month (ends Jan. 21, 2008). The last sock from Huard111 (who, by the way, was a "sock" of AppleMacReporter) was Huard119. AppleMacReporter and I had nothing to do with the Huard socks. (even though I got the blame and AppleMac got the block, see here) Then the block occurred to all of them and us (even though Huard111, Huard112, etc. was blocked well before all of this ever happened).

This quote by Rlevse shows it all:

Take a look at this, his contribs stop here. (referring to the checkuser page) AppleMacReporter is the oldest account (started Nov. 2006) and acts as the master; his participation in the SSP appears like he's trying to make himself look innocent, which would have worked if not for the SSP that Spellcast filed. Based on all this, I'm indef blocking him and changing all the tags to show him as the master.

He was innocent. Again, I had no idea this was happening in the background. He did several heroic things in the past. Now more background on the sock case...
Another quote by Rlevse:

Alison, do you mean AppleMacReporter is also a sock of Huard111 and should be blocked?

That was the original suspicion about all of this. Now, the checkuser was filed, and I got the blame by Alison. Then I asked to be unblocked twice, saying that
* First: I should never do this again
* Second: An apology
The first unblock was declined because of this reason:

Please read Alison's comments below — Chris

I'm the checkuser who ran your case. Obviously you know what happened here and so do I. Nobody else does, for reasons of privacy and, for that reason, there's little anybody can do for you at this moment. Now, you've been socking for - what - over a year now? And have been playing silly games and wasting everyone's time, even having the audacity to manage your own SSP case. All that has ended now, one way or another.

The second unblock was declined by none other than Rlevse because of this reason:

The apology is good, but Alison asked for an explanation also, so I'm declining it. — Rlevse

Now what we should do about this...
I suggest we back up to the moment that Huard117 was first introduced to Wikipedia. Then we go step by step to see what really happened. Finally, we should go to the point of AppleMac's last contrib, and discuss that.
Oh also, Merry Christmas. 64.53.2.215 (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And again

Okay, since you admit that you are User:AppleMacReporter, I can discuss that now. Firstly, I am actually the checkuser that ran your case. I didn't "blame" you, I discovered your socking. You see you, AppleMacReporter, are the master account here. This I know. You also created and used all those socks mentioned above. I know this too. You also created socks in the past and got yourself autoblocked as a result last February. This I also happen to know. I can see all this from the CheckUser report whereas others cannot. There is also the matter of User:TheTitansLost.

Let's not kid around here any more. AppleMacReporter is the master account here. There is no "blame" here, only fact. Now, if you wish to be unblocked - you were a good contributor before you started this time-wasting nonsense - you should try to convince the community here and at the very least give some sort of undertaking not to ever pull a stunt like this again. I've no interest in this one way or another, but you've been caught indulging in abusive sock-puppetry against Wikipedia policy - Alison ❤ 00:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Tyler. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)