User talk:Rachel63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr\ talk / 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

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 edit Korean articles because I am Korean. I said why this is ridiculous already. Lots of people were edit warring. Equazion did 3 reverts the same day I did. He was supporting the other editors on that page. In four months I agreed with bsharvy twice. I quit this site."

Decline reason: "You are not asking for an unblock and you are not addressing the reason you were blocked. — Yamla (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (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.

I did two reverts, 5 hours apart from each other. You did 4 reverts all within 1 hour, each time reverting a different person who disagreed with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:27, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. One of my reverts was because Wikipedia automatically undid mine thinking it was vandalism. I followed the instructions, and it said to redo my edit, so I did. I showed your edits in the report. You made 3 or 4 edits in one day.Rachel63 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the one I mean: 09:01, 12 March 2008 Anti-Americanism‎ (Undid revision 197678878 by ClueBot (talk)) I think you know this perfectly well because it says "ClueBot" right in Edit summary. Rachel63 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are putting back wrong information into the article:

"In Japan and South Korea, much anti-Americanism has focused on the presence and behavior of American military personnel, aggravated especially by high-profile cases of sexual assaults on locals by U.S. servicemembers" Objecting to CHILD RAPE by Americans is not anti-American. Also, that sentence is POV.

This is SO ridiculous. Rachel63 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, 3 edits in 1 hour, each time reverting someone else who disagreed with you. Same deal. 3RR isn't a definite line, it just means don't engage in revet wars. You're supposed to discuss things on the talk page, which you didn't seem to do at all that day. I'm sure I made 3 or 4 edits in one day, but they weren't reverts. There are some articles where I've made 30 edits in one day. Nothing wrong with that. About the removed content, I'm sure some people are anti-American for those reasons. It's one of the many possibilities for this very subjective topic. Bsharvy was doing the same thing, removing things he insisted didn't fall under the topic of anti-Americanism, regardless of the fact that anti-Americanism doesn't have so clear a definition that we can exclude certain possible uses. And that one sentence is not all your edit removed. Your edit removed a lot more content -- evidenced by ClueBot thinking it was vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:48, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
PS If you're quitting this site, why do you care whether or not you're blocked? That doesn't seem like the best thing to say in an unblock request. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:51, 14 Mar 2008 (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: "What do you mean I'm not asking to be unblocked. I thought that's what the unblock template was for. I am asking to be unblocked. I don't know the reason I was blocked. I edited one article that bsharvy edited and I commented on one other article that he edited. slakr thinks that means I'm the same person. It's all just "circumstantial evidence" that some admin thinks is enough. How can I address that? The fact is, it's wrong. What am I supposed to say? The "circumstantial evidence" isn't enough! I don't even have an opinion on that, because OBVIOUSLY I know. This is ridiculous. What can I say that would change someone's mind?? Rachel63 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The evidence that you are a sockpuppet seems strong enough to block. But as you've quit Wikipedia anyway, it's a moot point.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (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.

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: "OBVIOUSLY if I am requesting to be unblocked I haven't quit this site for real. I made that comment a week ago because I was mad. Why am I being invited to request an unblock if there is nothing I can say that will convince anyone?? You have this "circumstantial evidence" that you say is enough, and all you do in response to anything I say is repeat that the "circumstantial evidence" is enough. What can I say to change someone's mind? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then stop telling me there is something--and stop pretending this is fair. Rachel63 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Yeah, there really isn't much you can do. Sockpuppetry is one of those things that we can't ever be 100% sure about, but in a case like this, the evidence is enough to be very convincing. Read the sockpuppetry case, and the evidence discussed in Slakr's conclusions. If you can't explain all of that better than calling it all a big coincidence, I don't think anyone will end up believing you. Coincidences happen, but this looks to me like several coincidences at once, which just strains credibility too much. Mangojuicetalk 17:57, 18 March 2008 (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.

FYI for anyone interested, the original discussion can be found @ User_talk:Bsharvy#Sockpuppetry_case. --slakr\ talk

 / 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I don't call it a big coincidence. I think it's a little coincidence. I edited one article that he edited. I made one comment on the Talk page of one other article--about Korea. The explanation for that "coincidence" is that (I think) we both live in Korea. Basically, two people in Korea edited an anti-Americanism article. I think this might be a little racist. If two people in New York edited the same article plus some other stuff about New York, would you say they were sockpuppets??? What else is there? I don't understand all the stuff about editing times. I usually use the Internet after work. I don't goof off and read Wikipedia at work. What are my "grammar patterns?" He made that accusation and didn't explain it. What else am I supposed to explain? I can't explain what bsharvy does, but that is what you are asking me to do to prove I'm not bsharvy. It doesn't make sense. Rachel63 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Again, rachel, if you quit this site, an unblock shouldn't be necessary. That's why the admin said you weren't asking for an unblock. You seemed to just be expressing some final thoughts. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:21, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Rachel: can you please explain this edit? Given Bsharvy's propensity toward personal attacks, it would seem that your style of dealing with editors with whom you disagree is also very similar. --slakr\ talk / 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

He made me mad because he wasn't honest. Why don't you mention almost all my comments where I don't make personal attacks? Why are you picking on my one negative comment when everybody else on that Talk page was making lots of negative comments? When is my request going to be responded to? I made it days ago. Rachel63 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You expect people to ask you to explain your positive comments? Why aren't you bringing up any of the comments Slakr ever made where he wasn't complaining about people's personal attacks? When complaining and asking for an explanation, people will tend to only bring up the bad. It's good that you have lots of good comments in your history too, but that will in no way excuse personal attacks, even if they're rare. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:40, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

NO, I don't expect people to "explain" them. I expect people to consider them when making pronouncements about my "style." I made one personal remark the whole time I was on wikipedia, and suddenly slakr says I have a style of making personal attacks. That seems to be slakr's style. I edit one article that bsharvy edited (besides a comment on a Talk page) and slakr says we have articles in common and are the same person. I think slakr needs to learn something about logic. Rachel63 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't know Slakr's "style". He's an admin, and you generally don't become an admin by making unfounded accusations. As far as your style of handling disputes, we don't see you engaging in discussion very often. One of the few times that you did, you made a personal attack. One of the times when you didn't, you engaged in a revert war (while everyone else was talking the issue out). Whatever your style is, it doesn't look good. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:54, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
With more than due respect (due respect would be rude): She knows slakr's style the same way he knows hers. Your authority-worship predictably swallows slakr's accusations without question while compulsively launching half-baked attacks on others. Some don't brown-nose so eagerly. I admire your sincerity, not to mention logic, in suggesting Rachel63 engaged in an edit-war--with no one, because "everyone else was talking". Damn, that's thoughtful. --Bshanvy (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No she doesn't. Her only experience with him comes from this block. Yes everyone else was talking. Some made reverts, but only one per customer. Rachel did it 4 times, reverting everyone else. And you're a(nother) sock of a blocked user, so what are you even doing here. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:36, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
His only experience with her comes from this block. --Bshanvy (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. His complaints comes from looking at her contribs. Her complaints come purely from his reaction to her situation. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:46, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Looking at contribs isn't an experience with someone. Slakr's style is shown by what slakr has done. Nobody was "talking it out." Not only was the article in dispute, but some people were disputing whether we were disputing. It was a non-effort at consensus . --Bshanvy (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at contribs is how we determine the appropriateness of an editor's behavior. Rachel hasn't (of course) investigated Slakr's past contribs, because there is no reason to do so as Slakr is not under investigation. Rachel is, and so we've all scrutinized her contribs. Direct experience with her is not necessary to make a determination. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:13, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)