User talk:Squatt

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:37, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

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

—slakr^\ talk / 23:57, 22 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

1.No disruptive editing means no blocking. 2. The same checkuser which identified my accounts also identified my non-account: Rachel63. In other words, the original sockpuppet block was not supported. Is it disruptive to circumvent a wrong block? 3. Slakr is too invested in being right, in this case. He needs to remove himself. The threat to find out where I work and call my employer that he made on the anti-Americanism Talk page is inappropriate, and shows that he is making this personal.

Decline reason:

You don't get to edit while blocked. Even if you create a new account, blocked means blocked. If you wish to be able to edit, request unblock via the initial account; don't create new accounts to avoid the initial block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:08, 23 March 2008 (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.

Checkuser does not prove innocence, only guilt. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a quick note, I was referring to our abuse reports system as well as our long term abuse board; because, yes, we do contact service providers when it comes to repeat abuse. However, it would seem that you feel that I am too involved by blocking your recent slew of sockpuppet creations, so, if you would like, I won't touch the report should it ever come. But, you should keep in mind that if you continue upon the path of creating sockpuppets to evade a block, it's a very real possibility that someone else will continue escalating— especially if you run across one of the people who cares wayyyy too much about this stuff.

In all reality, if you simply took a couple of weeks off, didn't create any sockpuppets, and simply twiddled your thumbs in the meantime, THEN returned and asserted that that Rachel63 isn't your sockpuppet and that you'll never create abusive sockpuppets again, I actually wouldn't hesitate to give you another chance. No joke. You could the continue editing as normal and the whole mess would go away. Why? Because it would prove to me and most other editors that you don't feel compelled to edit the article to the point of abusing the encyclopedia in order to do so. Once that's established, sockpuppetry accusations are pretty much moot, because you'll be able to demonstrate that you simply don't need to create sockpuppets; and, you'll be free to once again improve Anti-Americanism or whatever other article you wish, assuming you keep with our policies.

At least it's an option, and it's your choice whether you would like to take it or not. At the current rate, however, repeatedly creating new accounts won't help, because even if you and Rachel aren't the same person, it doesn't help prove your innocence to engage in the one thing that you were blocked for engaging in in the first place (presumably erroneously). That would be like someone, despite never having set foot in another person's home, being accused of trespassing, then, in order to prove his innocence, breaking and entering into the person's house. It simply has no precedent in real life, so you will understand why I've constantly been skeptical of your assertions of innocence.

... but again, I'm giving you the option here. I couldn't care less what you want to add to whatever article(s) you want to add it. However, if people try to game the system in order to do so, that's when I start caring. Demonstrate that you have no intention to game the system as you've been doing, and there will be no further reason to keep you blocked. It's as simple as that, and it's totally up to you. --slakr^\ talk / 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser doesn't prove either. It provides evidence that deserves significant weight.
The refusal to accept it shows a closed a mind.
To explain the checkuser, Slakr has to take absurd positions. He says I never edit from home. I was editing when I was blocked--a Sunday.
I usually edit from home. Slakr is very keen on analyzing contribs. A fair & balanced analysis easily shows I can't just edit from work.
The lack of fairness & balance is everywhere. Unexplained accusations of grammatical similarities. Looking at past behavior--only for negatives. I was the only editor to do a RFC, the only editor to request mediation (disrupted by the block). Only I attempted to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Lack of good faith: Assuming that a (slight) mutual interest in Korea means sockpuppetry, even after the innocent explanation that we both live in Korea became known.
The excuse for threatening to call my work doesn't fly. Those links are about rampant, chronic vandalism. I've never been accused of vandalism. Even if sincere, fair treatment is a warning on the user's Talk page. Slakr blocked me, then threatened retaliation on an article Talk page, knowing I couldn't respond.
What's disturbing about all this is that Rachel63 is innocent, and nobody really cares. Bsharvy is "brusque?" Well, then, that's a reason to continue blocking someone else! Squatt is a sockpuppet of bsharvy? Block Rachel63! Nobody cares.
Various errors in Slakr's reasoning: Creating squatt isn't like trespassing because there was no disruption to the encyclopedia. I made normal edits to improve the encyclopedia. The "violation" was entirely pro-forma. (And, this argument has nothing to do with blocking Rachel63...but nobody cares.) The argument that I made abusive edits requires Rachel63 to be my sockpuppet. She isn't.
I'm through wasting effort trying to reason with people who just aren't going to admit a mistake. I've never vandalized, never double-voted; I've edit-warred two or three times in a year. But I'm threatened in my job, and blocked even after a checkuser indicates innocence. I agree to the block/deletion of squatt. Please restore bsharvy. Or at least show some interest in working together (and admitting a mistake). Otherwise, I'll just create a new account. This is also the logical course for Rachel63. Wikipedia is great at motivating people to create sockpuppets. If you want to keep respect, show respect. Squatt (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't read my response. I've already offered you a very reasonable option to prove that you have no need to create sockpuppets and thus happily prove me wrong. I love being proven wrong. I really do. Check out some of the people I've unblocked. When I'm proven wrong, I'm ecstatic, because it shows that someone actually is a good editor and that people aren't as abusive as it might otherwise appear. It brightens my day. Unfortunately, so far in this case, I don't think I've been proven wrong. Despite that, I'm still giving you the option to do so and have me write it off as having been proven wrong.

If, instead, you'd like to choose to keep along the same course of creating sockpuppets to evade blocks, twisting what people say to support your point of view, and discounting prior wrongdoings, however, then I'll be more than happy to simply walk away and happily end my involvement; and, judging by the consensus of the admins on your talk page, you would be effectively banned from editing.

So again, it's your choice. --slakr^\ talk / 19:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

You've got an email from me because I don't know whether you would read my question on this page. Or you can answer my questions here instead. Unfortunately, these questions are related to your private information, but I know that you're using Hanaro ISP and live in Ilsan, Goyang per your un-login edit. It is the only way to prove no relation between Rachel63 and you, Bsharvy.

Q1: Do you have a car and drive in South Korea? The question may be an important key to prove your (Bsharvy)'s innocence. Q2: What school you're working? --Appletrees (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]