User talk:Deconstructive Editor

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).

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

Request reason:

I stated, immediately upon being asked, that I was the same editor as had edited from my IP adress. (Vice versa actually, as the IP, I stated I had created the account.) thereupon I was instantly blocked. However, in reviewing your policy on IP editing, this does not seem to be a blockable offense or violation of any policy at all. I did not ever attempt to create the impression these were two distinct individuals editing. I merely edited while logged out for a couple weeks because I had had some issues with logging in (some error message about thread hijacking), got frustrated, gave up, and simply edited under the IP address. At a discussion to which i contributed, one of my collaborating editors said something like “I wish IP would create an account.” So i logged back in. Now I am blocked, despite havint violated no rules. Is this justice?Deconstructive Editor (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Knock it off! You are so very obviously a sock of Kingshowman (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2018 (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.

(edit conflict) Comment by blocking admin: The user was not blocked for having both an IP and a registered address. There is nothing wrong with that. The user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Kingshowman based on behavioral evidence. I did not at the time see that there was an active SPI request, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman, but I concur with the comments presented there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am nobody’s sock. I did not violate any rules by editing as an IP without logging in, as I explained above. (This appears to have been conceded.) The previous block review “obviously” was not a fair and impartial review of my unblock request. no grounds or evidence have anywhere been adduced in support of the allegations. When I look to the link a user provides to the so-called “investigation” of my guilt, I find that the party calling for the investigation and the Judge of the investigation are the same person(!!!) And what is worse, this Accuser/Judge is AlSO the same editor who “declines” my unblock request above! How can this possibly be considered a neutral, 3rd party review? How can an “investigation” by the same person which essentially seems to consist in their accusing me, then claiming my guilt is obvious, and immediately closing the investigation with a self proclaimed verdict of guilty, then be cited as evidence for declining my unblock request? I reiterate that I am innocent of all accusations against me (indeed, I am innocent of all wrongdoing full stop) and that my continued block is likely to cause significant harm and deprivation to the encylopedia. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am nobody’s sock. I did not violate any rules by editing as an IP without logging in, as I explained above. (This appears to have been conceded.) The previous block review  “obviously” was not a fair and impartial review of my unblock request. no grounds or evidence have anywhere been adduced in support of the allegations. When I  look to the link 
a user provides to the so-called “investigation” of my guilt, I find that the party calling for the investigation  and the Judge of the investigation are the same person(!!!) And what is worse, this Accuser/Judge is AlSO the same editor who “declines” my unblock request above! How can this possibly be considered a neutral, 3rd party review? How can an “investigation” by the same person which essentially seems to consist in their accusing me, then claiming my guilt is obvious, and immediately closing the investigation with a self proclaimed verdict of guilty, then be cited as evidence for declining my unblock request?  I reiterate that I am innocent of all accusations against me (indeed, I am innocent of all wrongdoing full stop) and that my continued block is likely to cause significant harm and deprivation to the encylopedia. [[User:Deconstructive Editor|Deconstructive Editor]] ([[User talk:Deconstructive Editor#top|talk]]) 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am nobody’s sock. I did not violate any rules by editing as an IP without logging in, as I explained above. (This appears to have been conceded.) The previous block review  “obviously” was not a fair and impartial review of my unblock request. no grounds or evidence have anywhere been adduced in support of the allegations. When I  look to the link 
a user provides to the so-called “investigation” of my guilt, I find that the party calling for the investigation  and the Judge of the investigation are the same person(!!!) And what is worse, this Accuser/Judge is AlSO the same editor who “declines” my unblock request above! How can this possibly be considered a neutral, 3rd party review? How can an “investigation” by the same person which essentially seems to consist in their accusing me, then claiming my guilt is obvious, and immediately closing the investigation with a self proclaimed verdict of guilty, then be cited as evidence for declining my unblock request?  I reiterate that I am innocent of all accusations against me (indeed, I am innocent of all wrongdoing full stop) and that my continued block is likely to cause significant harm and deprivation to the encylopedia. [[User:Deconstructive Editor|Deconstructive Editor]] ([[User talk:Deconstructive Editor#top|talk]]) 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am nobody’s sock. I did not violate any rules by editing as an IP without logging in, as I explained above. (This appears to have been conceded.) The previous block review  “obviously” was not a fair and impartial review of my unblock request. no grounds or evidence have anywhere been adduced in support of the allegations. When I  look to the link 
a user provides to the so-called “investigation” of my guilt, I find that the party calling for the investigation  and the Judge of the investigation are the same person(!!!) And what is worse, this Accuser/Judge is AlSO the same editor who “declines” my unblock request above! How can this possibly be considered a neutral, 3rd party review? How can an “investigation” by the same person which essentially seems to consist in their accusing me, then claiming my guilt is obvious, and immediately closing the investigation with a self proclaimed verdict of guilty, then be cited as evidence for declining my unblock request?  I reiterate that I am innocent of all accusations against me (indeed, I am innocent of all wrongdoing full stop) and that my continued block is likely to cause significant harm and deprivation to the encylopedia. [[User:Deconstructive Editor|Deconstructive Editor]] ([[User talk:Deconstructive Editor#top|talk]]) 22:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}