Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:53, 22 December 2006

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Request Unblock : So, can everyone that sides with user:miracleimpulse on the sweetest day page issue expect to be "infinitely" blocked from wikipedia? Am I experiencing a malicious block that is a result of admins attempting to manufacture consensus? I'm beginning to wonder.. Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Request Unblock : So, can everyone that sides with user:miracleimpulse on the sweetest day page issue expect to be "infinitely" blocked from wikipedia? Am I experiencing a malicious block that is a result of admins attempting to manufacture consensus? I'm beginning to wonder.. Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Request Unblock : So, can everyone that sides with user:miracleimpulse on the sweetest day page issue expect to be "infinitely" blocked from wikipedia? Am I experiencing a malicious block that is a result of admins attempting to manufacture consensus? I'm beginning to wonder.. Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a lot of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hi. Just a comment: ordinary editors and admins don't have access to logged-in users' IP addresses per Misplaced Pages privacy policy. Only a very select few would be able to look at your IP address to see if it is shared with other editors. Just making sure you know that. Not a dog 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted the blocking admin for comment. In the meantime, please bear with us, and thanks for your patience. Luna Santin 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Meisterchef is definitely not a sock puppet. JzG owes him a big wikipology. Miracleimpulse 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we really having such a hard time with determining that I am not the user you're accusing me of being? Is it really so hard to believe that I agree with him, and am otherwise unaffiliated? Can you really justify a blanket indefinite ban as a result of a single post that agrees with another user? I'm totally amazed honestly.

And how can you possibly say that I'm using complex[REDACTED] procedures and must therefore be a sock puppet? Me signing one post incorrectly is what started this mess to begin with. Someone please submit this issue to an impartial admin with actual authority. IP addresses must be reviewed in order to clear this up. I'm not user:Miracleimpulse, but I do agree with his viewpoint. That is all. meisterchef 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on the admin noticeboard to see if another admin would be willing to review the situation. I will also say that when you start off posting with a distinct lack of assumption of good faith as you did in your point 3 of the post at Talk:Sweetest Day you can't expect people to be overly willing to go out of their way to extend WP:AGF to you.--Isotope23 20:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Still not unbanned, still not a sockpuppet. Oh the injustice of it all...

And in point 3 of my post, I didn't make any assumptions at all. I only posted what it looked like to me. The post in question asked specifically for an outside opinion and I gave it. Sorry if you found it offensive!

meisterchef 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I love how theres some kind of "wiki-trial" going against me here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/miracleimpulse

..and I can't even post on it in my own defense because I'm banned.

meisterchef 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can't post on the admin board either.

meisterchef 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who." I'd say that is an assumption on your part and not a good faith one at that. It has nothing to do with being offensive, it's simply is jumping to an conclusion; and in this case an incorrect one... and the outside opinion I was looking for was on user:Miracleimpulse's disruptive actions surrounding several articles and debates here, not on the article content which I think has a pretty good consensus and it has been strongly demonstrated several times now that the version of the article user:Miracleimpulse favors is too reliant on original research and draws far too many conclusions not supported by the sources thus far provided.--Isotope23 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing... Sockpuppet investigations tend to take a long time... I initiated one near the beginning of November and it still has not been undertaken yet. There is a faster method that could be done if it is accepted and I'd be willing to initiate it on your behalf, because I suspect you are not actually Miracleimpulse. Before I do that though I'd like you to confirm something. This has no bearing on whether I'll help you or not (if you ask me to I will initiate the process), but it will help me with said process.

From the looks of it, you logged in as meisterchef and made your post to Talk:Sweetest Day, then logged out and pasted the same post to the Admin Noticebard from your IP. That IP had earlier corrected a spelling error by User:Eyetomhas, an account with only one edit. This would circumstantially seem to suggest that User:Eyetomhas is an earlier account that you used at one point, but then later created meisterchef and are no longer editing from User:Eyetomhas. This would not be a WP:SOCK violation if these are both your accounts since you are not actively editing from both, but if they are both your accounts, they resolve to the same IP, and you state that here before I initiate the process it goes a long way towards establishing that you are telling the truth (and if they are not both your accounts, you state that , and they resolve to different IPs that is fine to). Either way it is going to help your request to go on record here. Can you confirm or deny this?--Isotope23 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

They are in fact both my accounts. I'd honestly forgotten I created the earlier one. (As I said, I've been watching this article for quite a while). As to the logout, I had closed out wikipedia, and reopened it. My browser settings logged me out upon closing it, and I didn't realize it. It was my intention to post the same comment in both places with the newly created account. Any assistance you might offer me would be greatly appreciated.

And my original post was meant to convey that I don't feel that user: Miracleimpulse's contributions to the sweetest day page constitute original research. Every contribution Miracleimpulse has made has been previously published, and I still find his contributions to be valuable. If anything, the appeal of his contributions is his neutral presentation. The information, while somewhat condemning, speaks for itself. This is why I feel the need to advocate it, and why I support its inclusion in the[REDACTED] article.

This is just my opinion, I have no intention of editing the article in question at this point, as I have no new information to contribute. I only posted my support on a forum, as I must always advocate the truth, especially on Misplaced Pages.

meisterchef 15:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) meisterchef 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock