User talk:ThreeE
Unblock Request[edit]
ThreeE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of a much younger account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Grandma_Dottie. I have no relation to the Grandma_Dottie account or any of the other accounts listed in the investigation. My understanding is that the checkuser came back as "possible" based on unstated "technical and behavioral" reasons. I would welcome addressing any of the specifics if given. I did edit the same pages as Grandma_Dottie, but that is all. I struggle with what else I could possibly say to address this issue. I simply am not involved. :I have looked closer at the edit histories involved, and the only connection I see between my account and the confirmed sockpuppets in the investigation is in editing the disambiguation page BQ -- and this applies only to User:Mypasswordis_muscle. This user made a single edit to the page BQ and a single edit to that page's talk page. I agreed with their edit on the talk page. I see no other connection. User:Mypasswordis_muscle and User:Just_muscle seem to be related only because of an account-naming issue -- so that doesn't even seem to be sockpuppetry between the two confirmed sockpuppets. :I'm not sure what policy the sockpuppets in question are allegedly trying to circumvent. The first guess might be the 3RR -- but the BQ page has a long history of back and forth on the reversion in question. Are all accounts on one side of the issue sockpuppets? I counted more than 10 of these changes over multiple years -- most of which were reverted back to the same phrase by the accuser. Moreover, the sockpuppets in question didn't even commit 3RR collectively. :I am not an expert on the intricacies of checkuser but the results as they pertain to me were "Behavioral and stylistic analysis is suggested." Assuming the "behavioral and stylistic analysis" is to actually be done, how do you compare my years of editing to the single edit made by the confirmed sockpuppet in question? The only behavior that we seem to share is a single disagreement with a single author which was handled on a talk page in a relatively civil manner. As I understand it, sockpuppet evidence must also be "quite strong, not just a vague belief or assumption" (WP:SPI) in order to result in this kind of response. :Finally, I have no special connection with this account name, so I've decided to move to an alternative account. If this block is lifted, I'll return and retire the alternate. I really don't have any connection to this issue, but I have no patience for this or the ongoing accusations that I am sure will continue. ThreeE (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Just give up. "Possible" is enough for a Checkuser block; onus is on *you* to prove you are NOT the sockpuppet/-master since administrators cannot do it themselves and Checkuser isn't used to prove innocence. Since this is primarily a checkuser block and you seem to be trying to lawyer it, I'm taking the liberty of revoking your talk page as soon as I finish this decline. Good day. Mutes -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (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.
Other notes[edit]
It should also be noted that this user has created additional sockpuppet accounts since being blocked in an attempt to circumvent the previous block. — BQZip01 — talk 22:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Hurricane Katrina fringe theories[edit]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TIP31 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIP31 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)