User talk:Astrometre

October 2011

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrometre. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astrometre. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe that this block was in error, 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This is absurd! You don't make any sense. My account shouldn't be blocked for "sock puppetry". I am not yet interested in commenting on another article. You gotta start somewhere. If people are interested in an article all of a sudden, does it mean they are conspiring? This action is plain dumb. Astrometre (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your user account was confirmed by CheckUser as operating at least one, and likely three, other accounts, all of which !voted, along with yourself, at a single AfD. Abuse of multiple accounts in an attempt to influence a discussion is against Wikipedia policies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 26 October 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.

From what I can gather, one of two things are true:

User:Ptenski, User:Wihnoe8033, User:Splitjack, User:Astrometre are four separate people gathered around the same computer or device and have decided to create an article and then nominate the very article they have created for deletion. If so, this does not add up one bit.
User:Ptenski, User:Wihnoe8033, User:Splitjack, User:Astrometre are all operated by the same person; in this case, this person is either not right or is deliberately jerking us around.

–MuZemike 06:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I was made aware that you folks did not create the Schaefer Ambulance Service article, but the reasons for the disruption of the deletion discussion still needs to be addressed. –MuZemike 06:10, 26 October 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).

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

Request reason:

After attempting to clean up the article, I decided to support the deletion of the article itself. It appears there were previous attempts to delete it. Maybe you people are prolonging the existence of such undeserving articles. I've noticed many errors and misinformation in other articles, and I can see that your system of "checks" could be contributing to the preservation of articles that are no better than a reprint of "company history" and updates of "company news" in business homepages. In addition to looking out for unusual activities and hypothesizing what people are doing, you should also pay attention to what's in the articles and what people are saying. Your action is wrong, and you are penalizing the wrong person. Perhaps "admin" actions need to be peer-reviewed, unless, of course, actions are more interested in passing out merit badges to each other. Astrometre (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Unblock request does not address the reason for the block. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 26 October 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Reason: In short, I am not part of "sock puppetry". Astrometre (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per CheckUser and everything else already discussed. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 26 October 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.

Again, please explain your relation to the other three accounts mentioned. –MuZemike 06:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no relationship. Astrometre (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser says otherwise. If you can't explain that, your unblock request will be denied again. Why does CheckUser confirm you using multiple accounts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser is wrong. But you guys don't believe that. You believe each other. Good. Farewell guys. Medals to everyone.Astrometre (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my account and my posts.Astrometre (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Dear WeakiLords, please delete my account and my posts. I see how you preserve and protect mediocrity. [[User:Astrometre|Astrometre]] ([[User talk:Astrometre#top|talk]]) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)}}

De-activated as this is not an unblock request. We don't delete accounts, and we don't do courtesy vanishing for users that are blocked and/or have abused Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that sounds very similar to Splitjack's ragequit (at least with the similarly very high levels of defensiveness and guilty conscience). We would be willing to work with you, but if you're going to continue with your flat-out denial about your lack of relation to the other three accounts, then we cannot help you. –MuZemike 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]