User talk:Cwiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<strike>{{unblock reviewed|1=i am not a sockpuppet. i cannot see any reason to suspect that i was a sockpuppet. how do you convince someone you're not a sockpuppet if you can see no reason why you were suspected of being one. if you read User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc you'll see the offender "advances the idea that her visions were divine guidance" - I argue the opposite. The offender also "refuses to discuss changes on the talk page" where the talk pages are full of my edits. JzG seems to have acted in haste and without any discretion or nouse in blocking me. I stopped editing in June because i am fed up with wikipedia, but i would still like to be unblocked|decline=On the balance of probabilities I think there's no need to unblock. You indicate you don't wish to edit Wikipedia, and your contributions do substantiate the suspicion of the account being a sockpuppet. I also think JZG acted in good faith here. -- [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 11:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)}}</strike>

I left a message on JzG's talk page. Eli Falk 09:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is insane. i'm suspected of being a sockpuppet of someone who's views i seem to contradict. i'm not unblocked because i'm not inclined to edit - what sort of reason is that. How do my contributions substantiate the suspicion that i am a sockpuppet? i never said jzg didn't act in good faith, i just think he acted with no justification. Cwiki 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I apologise for not being clearer. I think your edit contributions justify the suspicion, and therefore the block. I also think there's little value to be gained from unblocking you if you don't desire to edit. Wikipedia is losing nothing and you are losing nothing, the suspicion being attached to this account, not you as a person in your everyday life. Balancing those points against the possibility you may not be a sock, I see no reason to unblock you. You asked for a review of your block, and have received one. Good day. Steve block Talk 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

actually i didn't receive a review. all i got was someone who couldn't be bothered checking the facts because i have been an inactive editor. i stated that i was inactive because of some of the flaws that wikipedia suffers from. being blocked arbitrarily and not unblocked because of bogus reasons doesn't help. if you're too lazy to check the facts you shouldn't bother getting involved. you still didn't say why my contributions justify the suspicion, you merely repeated your belief. i've read the article about sock puppets and it says that an account with 100 edits on different articles is unlikely to be a sock puppet. my contributions have been many and varied. i have stated that i have stopped editing. that shouldn't be used as any sort of justification to not bother checking the facts properly. i haven't seen or heard of any wikipedia policies about blocking people who are inactive editors. i didn't say i would never edit in the future. being unjustly blocked and having administrators not really care just adds to the bad taste that has kept me away for 6 months. Cwiki 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I withdraw my review. I apologise for any offence you feel my actions have caused you, although in return I offer you the frustration your comments left me. I consider them unhelpful, offensive and demeaning. Steve block Talk 16:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve, seriously, I wish to be unblocked, I have asked to be unblocked, and all i ask is that an administrator investigate the bona fides (or lack thereof) of the original block. to date no-one seems willing to do this. it is not "counter-intuitive nonsense" to want an unjust block unblocked just because i am not inclined to edit at the present moment. i have been blocked for suspicion of being a sock puppet. i know I am not a sock puppet.put yourself in my shoes and imagine the frustration. I admitted that I am not inclined to edit at the moment. i'm sure a lot of people cease editing and return at a later date. however my admission seems to have led administrators to feel they don't have to check the merits of the block. I have 100+ edits on a range of subjects, and clearly I have a desire to be unblocked (so that I can edit in the future). If i desire to be unblocked, the merits of the original block should be properly checked. I could just quit this fight to be unblocked and resurface when I want to with a different user name, but I would like to see wikipedia handle these sort of cases better; with some semblance of due process. All i ask is that an administrator check the merits of the original block. I am an australian doctor, it would not be very difficult at all to check my bona fides if someone took the time to check.Cwiki 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

Let's assume good faith here. It looks like this is a legitimate editor who got swept in the User:AWilliamson cleanup.

To Cwiki, as the primary investigating administrator on that case I extend my apologies and welcome you back. On rare occasions Wikipedia sysops deal with long term vandals. This particular one changed tactics many times and may have used proxy servers. Your participation at Joan of Arc happened during an edit war on a contested topic and certain elements of your edit and edit history did resemble approaches that this vandal was known to have used. Your inclusion on the list of suspected sockpuppets was borderline.

I hope this experience hasn't soured you on Wikipedia. The particular chain of events that led to your block was a highly unusual circumstance. Feel free to visit my user talk page again if the need arises. Respectfully, Durova^Charge 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)