Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abusing multiple accounts (including IPs) to violate 3RR at Occupation of the Baltic states. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you try anything like that again, the block will be indefinite. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:27, 18 April 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).

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

---

Request reason:

And were is the proof of my abusing multipile accounts? Given I have in fact not done so. Tentontunic (talk) 8:12 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Decline reason:

As mentioned, it's a checkuser block. In case you wish to know more details, kindly email the blocking administrator Jpgordon who, as he may seem fit, would share information with you. Otherwise, come back after a month. Thanks Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:47, 18 April 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.

No need to email me. All I'll say in response is that the checkuser evidence is convincing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon is a checkuser, so no formal SPI needs to be filed from my understanding. Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:OP#IP94.46.3.201 for the open proxy investigation. One IP is a dynamic address from Tiscali, while the other is from an anonymity application and has now been range-blocked. TFD (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if we're assuming because IP addresses were proxies that Tentontunic is guilty—or if the evidence is stronger. Why assume Igny's reference to "others" did not also include me, as I was active at the article too? It could even be someone attempting to get Tentontunic blocked through the suspicious appearance of anon IPs reverting to ostensibly avoid 3RR. And quite honestly, there are a lot of people who use "anonymizers" to protect their privacy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so your checkuser evidence is that someone with the same OS using Chrome is no doubt myself? Not around half the world who no doubt have the same OS and use Chrome, well done that man. And apparently one of these IP`s is not in fact a proxie at all [1] and the other is used by someone called [User:InkHeart] [2], excellent detective work indeed. Tentontunic (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@jpgordon, it is not clear if one or both IPs are involved. Checkuser isn't magic wiki pixie dust, it's adjunct to behavioural evidence, and I must say that Tentontunic has rarely edited Occupation of the Baltic states, so I don't see why he would be motivated to sock over a POV tag in an article that he has only edited rarely. There are many more editors I know of who would be much more committed to this kind of caper than Tentontunic. --Martin (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request another checkuser review my findings. I'd be perfectly content to be wrong here, but from my admittedly quite narrow view, the results are not ambiguous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Chrome has grown to 11% market share as of February 2011, according to this report, and we don't know Chrome's prevalence among geeks self selecting to edit Wikipedia. So it isn't as uncommon as one might suspect. Given what I know of his editing interests, it really is out of character. --Martin (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and if another checkuser repudiates my findings, or thinks they are insufficiently convincing, well, that will be that. You could just file an SPI, listing the two IPs and Tentontunic, and another CU will pick it up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've submitted a request here. --Martin (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]