Mesilliac

April 2013

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is not a sock puppet account, it is my (one and only) Wikipedia account. You can easily tell it's mine because I have a static IP address. A while ago I was looking for a specific piece of info on the William Wordsworth poem Lucy Gray. I did not find that information in the Wikipedia article, but strangely enough found that it had been present, but had been removed without any given reason by the user Ktr101. So i reverted that removal so that the Wikipedia article would include that information that i had specifically come to Wikipedia to learn about. Some months later, I find that my account has been blocked with an accusation of "abusing multiple accounts". A simple check of the revision history for the page Lucy Gray shows that i clearly stated my reasons for editing the page. A quick check of my account history shows that i created it over five years ago. This is not a sock puppet account.

Decline reason:

Actually, no, it doesn't. In 2008, you made two edits to Talk:3D projection, and your next edit was to Lucy Gray in March 2013. If you did create it, then you are the banned User:Ottava Rima and this is a sockpuppet. Peridon (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

• Nothing has changed since my original assessment in April. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You can see some of my other contributions if you look at the history for my IP address: [4]. I don't usually bother to log in when I submit edits, and I am not a huge contributor. When I see a minor mistake I simply fix it. 2008 was 5 years ago. I specifically logged into my actual account for the Lucy Gray edit because I didn't understand why the information was removed, and wanted to be able to check back later. When I saw that my edit had been reverted, I simply left it at that, because that time the reason was actually given. I only found out yesterday when I tried to fix an incorrect link on another page that my account was blocked, along with my IP address. If you look at the other "suspected sockpuppets of Rinpoche" [5] every single other one is an anonymous IP address, not an actual account. None of my other edits have anything to do with it. The fact that nothing has changed includes the fact that this is an erroneously blocked account. I do not even understand how you can conclude that because I do not use the account regularly it is a sockpuppet account, or why you are claiming that I am the user Ottava Rima. I pointed to the fact that the account is at least as old as 2008 to show that it was obviously not created with the intention of making the Lucy Gray edit that this whole fiasco seems to be about. On the page [6] you seem to be saying that I claim to have created the Lucy Grey article? I claim no such thing. I made two edits to it, one of which reverted an unjustified deletion of information (later reverted with justification), and one of which clarified a minor inconsistency.

Decline reason:

I am not inclined to unblock. The edite to the Lucy Gray article were to revert a removal of original research. The only other editor to try to re-add the ocntent was an obvious sock, who was also trying to re-add everything else a confirmed sock had tried to add at various pages. This account's unblock requests have similar reasoning to the unblock requests of at least one of the confirmed socks. I am convinced that this is a sock account. Singularity42 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

My mistake in reading what you posted above to mean it was the article you had created rather than the account. 'It' can be a tricky little word when there are two possible referents. I'll leave it to others to determine the outcome, but you aren't Ottava Rima. My apologies. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You say my arguments are similar to some other arguments? What arguments can I possibly make other than simply stating what I did and why? I came to the article for my already-stated purpose. I decided to check the page history on a whim. I saw that a real human user DaftOldBat89 had made some contributions, including the information i was specifically looking for. I saw that these contributions had been reverted by a "Helpful Pixie Bot" (not a real human) under the name Ktr101, with *no reason given*. I saw that another user TerenceAndPhilip had restored the information (also with no reason given), and that the Helpful Pixie Bot had removed it (yet again, with no reason given). So I restored the information i had been looking for, and *gave a reason for it*. Then the information was again removed, *but this time an actual reason was given for the removal*. That should have been the end of it. And it was. If I had known there was some sort of war going on (there was no warning at all), if there had been any discussion on the talk page (there wasn't), or if the deletions had been being done by a real human being in stead of some automated process (they weren't), i never would have touched it. As far as I can tell, my block is under the assumption that I am the same person as the owner of those other two accounts. I am not. I don't know what else I can possibly do other than submit another unblock request. Even if this were a sockpuppet account (which it is not), I do not understand what I could do with it that would warrant keeping it blocked when a valid reason has been given for the single edit I made. I had no idea that the reason for the deletion of the information i sought was that it was "original research", until that was actually stated as the reason when my edit was reverted. I have no reason to touch anything related to Rinpoche ever again. And I will obviously be more careful about walking into unmarked warzones in the future.

Decline reason:

It's taken me quite a while to make a decision on this, but after careful consideration and investigation, I'm declining this request. Rinpoche is well-known for elaborate unblock requests, and for inventing comprehensive new personae with which to make them. If I'm in error, then I apologise most sincerely; howver it seems more plausible that this is Rinpoche account than that someone would search Wikipedia for commentary on one specific Wordsworth rhyme and then choose to locate it and dig it out of the page history. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Do you have any idea what it's like to hate Wikipedia? To absolutely detest it? To think, every time you search for information and a link to Wikipedia comes up, "Oh, that's the site that blocked not only my account but my actual IP address, permanently, on the flimsiest suspicion of wrongdoing. Where every appeal was met with nothing but accusations of being a liar. Where even after i had gone far beyond demonstrating reasonable doubt, all my calmly and politely-stated arguments were met with prejudice, contempt, and the worst kind of ignorance."? To know that no matter what might happen, your favourite website has been ruined for you, forever? Well I do, now. Mesilliac (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)