User talk:IPadWanderer

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Geek2003 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you are a sock puppet, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:40, 4 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, please unblock my account. I am a new user to Wikipedia. This block is unfair because I am user of an iPad with Verizon wireless service. My IP address changes constantly even though I am on the same device. I only made edits to the Windows Media Center and Avaya Phone 1140 pages that were useful and provided detailed insightful information. None of theses edits should have been considered offensive.

Decline reason:

While this may be the case, this does not address your alleged usage of multiple accounts; you were blocked because behavioral evidence shows that you a probably also using User:Geek2003, and checkuser hasn't disproved that fact. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 6 September 2011 (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.

3rd party unblock request

I'm an involved editor here, as I've largely been calling to delete the articles that Geek2003 has been working on and for which IPadWanderer has been advocating their retention.

Despite being on "the other side" here, I see this as an "unsafe block". There is no convincing evidence that this is a sock. Their editing actions have been within the bounds of GF. It is not yet policy to block for having a difference of opinion with user:Alan Liefting. Both editors are relatively new to WP and if this was a disruptive sock, Geek2003 is now well aware of how badly that is regarded.

Mostly though I simply fail to see strong evidence for socking. Alan Liefting's comment at the SPI is in my view pejorative: ' is actively opposing the deletions and appears to have retaliated by putting one of the article that I created up for deletion. ' would be damning evidence against a retaliatory sock, if it weren't for the fact that this editor didn't do any of that. The "active opposition" to multiple deletions was on the part of Geek2003, their creator (and would we expect article creators to behave any differently?). Retaliatory deletions are a bad thing, but again that's a behaviour issue for a different editor, not evidence of IPadWanderer being a sock.

IPadWanderer has contributed to one of the several AfDs in effect at present. That's fewer than I have. Should I expect now to be blocked as a sock of Alan Liefting? This is suspicious, even reasonable grounds for a SPI, but it's not enough to invoke WP:DUCK and indef block a new and non-disruptive editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the refused unblock, I've now converted my previous comment to a formal unblock request.

"this does not address your alleged usage of multiple accounts"

How about the belief that there simply is no such use? Are we now a kangaroo court, where release is only possible if the innocent accused first confesses anyway?

"because behavioral evidence shows"

It shows nothing of the sort. There's nowhere near enough overlap to support any credible claim of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Andy. I think an recheck with another more agressive checkuser. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above was posted before I made this a formal unblock request, but I don't want to misrepresent Ebe123's views in any way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the third party unblock - nice meaning, but you already know that you take 3rd party requests to WP:ANI. If the editor wants unblock, then they need to post it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-checked and, based on an edit on 6 September 2011 (which I suspect was made because this individual messed up his IP management… most sockmasters do it), the link is technically

Likely. I would recommend that an unblock not be granted. Another checkuser is welcome to also look into this. AGK [•] 11:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ublock request for IPadWanderer now raised at AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]