User talk:Drjsveca

Signs[edit]

Sinh is my cousin and we live in the same home. I'm not the same person. Don't change our nicks please, it's vandalism ¬¬U --Pedro82 15:23, 4 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

You were blocked over two years ago. Why the sudden denial now? f o x (formerly garden) 10:53, 29 March 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What kind of decline reason is the above? What evidence is there that I am a sockpuppet? Unless you are going to unblock me, please put this request on hold and contact the blocking admin so that he can explain this block as it is hard to argue this when the blocking admin did not provide any evidence. Drjsveca (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am trying to convince you that my block was made in error, but the blocking admin did not provide any evidence. Drjsveca (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have looked back through the relevant history and there is plenty of evidence. Sufficient explanation of the evidence was given years ago, and there is no good reason to repeat it now. Please don't waste more time by making more unblock requests without giving a more substantial reason, or you may well have talk page access revoked. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (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.

Block[edit]

Can someone please contact the blocking admin or explain to me the evidence that I am a sockpuppet instead of just saying I am? Drjsveca (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is here. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:02, 27 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks for pointing that out. The blocking admin's reasoning is "legit new accounts don't make SSP reports right off the bat". I was an IP editor. I created this account because IP editors cannot make SSP reports. I already explained that [1]. I do not have any other account. Drjsveca (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The balance of evidence suggests that you have been evading your block and being less than 100% forthcoming about how you have done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2010 (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.

...and in the edit history, and in a sockpuppet investigation which this editor edited, so he/she has certainly seen the evidence. Continually claiming that no evidence has been given is trolling, and not worth more of our time. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, amusingly, this is the same person as User:AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the evidence before because I was looking at the block log and decline reasons. Drjsveca (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, that is really stretching it. I can see that the account you are referring to has had a ridiculously large ip range block. I have never even edited the same article as that account. I don't even see my name mentioned in that sock report. Drjsveca (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why has no one contacted the blocking admin so I could discuss with him? Drjsveca (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, your unblock request comes while the blocking admin is away for a period of time. Due to your attitude so far, I'm happy to put it on hold until they're back if you would like. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so. Drjsveca (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I check and Jpgordon's idea isn't much of a stretch. Second, hasn't anyone noticed that this block is almost 3 years old? I find that quite odd. Third, since it's three years old, I don't even remember it, not even after reading my archive. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not odd. I was an IP editor. As an IP editor, I often face collateral damage. I am getting really annoyed with the collateral damage, so I would like my account unblocked. Just because you can't remember it doesn't make the original block valid. The original reasoning for your block is listed above. Quote, "Drjsveca is definitely a sock of someone as legit new accounts don't make SSP reports right off the bat-sorry I didn't notice this before. I'm blockingDrjsveca."[2]Drjsveca (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained how creating an SSP report (the original reason for blocking) does not make one a sockpuppet. The blocking admin commented after being requested to and did not refute that. The blocking admin then brought up the issue of this being an old block, which is not really a good reason to leave one blocked. I have explained that above. The third and last remaining idea, which is dubious and has nothing to do with the reason I was blocked, the blocking admin only commented as "isn't much of a stretch." I have already explained how I am a victim of collateral damage and range blocking. I have addressed all issues that the blocking admin has brought up. Drjsveca (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to unblock[edit]

I have previously declined a request to unblock this account. However. I have now examined the very early editing history of the account in more detail, and I do find the user's account plausible. I have identified an IP editing shortly before this account was created which I think may well be this editor. If this is correct then the claim that this account was created by the IP editor to start an SPI is totally plausible, as the alleged sock puppeteer had been troublesome to that IP editor. I do not find any actual evidence of sock puppetry by Drjsveca, nor has any been cited in the discussions above. The blocking admin has been asked to comment, and has done so, but the substance of the comment is more or less "I don't remember anything about this". The three year wait before asking for an unblock is surprising, but not in itself strong evidence of anything wrong. Despite the fact that I have previously declined an unblock request here, I am now inclined to consider unblocking. However, the principal remaining doubt is the suggestion above that this is the same person as AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC. I can see no direct evidence of this, but the timing coincidence is noticeable, and to make sure I have requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC. If this results in the conclusion that they are the same person then I think we can safely leave things. If not, however, my inclination is to assume good faith and unblock. Any comments, both from Drjsveca and from anyone else, will be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon and rlevse already did checks and the results show in the range but not exact match. The timing actually makes sense because I get affected by range blocks, which is one reason I want an account. Drjsveca (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just the range; it's the timing as well as the other characteristics that Checkuser identifies. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you were editing recently from an IP and found yourself caught in a block? If so, can you say what IP (or IPs)? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have not responded to that question. If you don't respond soon I will drop my proposal to unblock you. If you can indicate that you were editing from an IP shortly before you went back to using this account, and if it looks to me as though you may have innocently been caught in a range block then I am disposed to unblock. If, however, you don't help me i don't think I can do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP I am using right now is 71.255.90.173. Drjsveca (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about an IP you may have been using when AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC was blocked, as you implied that that block inadvertently caught the IP you were using at the time. 71.255.90.173 has never made any edits, so it can't be relevant. I am sure that you could find some of the edits you were doing at the time and point out the IP you used to make them, if you wished to. As I have already said, I was thinking of unblocking. However, both what you have said and what you have failed to say have now led me to think that you very probably are AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC. Even if, as still seems plausible, the original block was a mistake, it is clear that you have been avoiding that block, either (as others have suggested) with the account AAAACCCCDDDDCCCC, or (as you have indicated) by anonymous editing, or both. It also seems likely that you have been less than totally forthcoming about the history of your editing. Unfortunately this has led me to decide that there is not a good enough case for unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have recent edits because I was range blocked and I do not want to bypass a block when I am trying to get this account unblocked. 71.255.90.173 was the IP I was using when I wrote the message. You already saw the IP from 2007. I don't know what else to look for or how to do it. Drjsveca (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP I am using right now is 71.255.92.81. Drjsveca (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof 71.255.92.81 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that the above edit is evidence that I was telling the truth. Drjsveca (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]