Biophase

Thanks Chaser, I know there was someone from at least one of the articles I edited who allegedly were using sockpuppets. I have a feeling some over zealous admin included me as one of these. I say allegedly because after this I can no longer consider that accusation to be a reliable one. -Biophase 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really getting impatient now at rogue admins who block users without stating a reason and then run away. Wikipedia is crap. -Biophase 13:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to enable an email address, I can email you when I hear back. In the meantime, Mackensen seems to have gone on vacation, so I'm going to pursue other sources of information.--Chaser - T 15:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok -Biophase 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is going to take some time. Please bear with us.--Chaser - T 17:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this can not be resolved and there is no reference to it. Clearly this is not an arbcom decision, I want to be unblocked, now! -Biophase 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Appealing an illegitimate block...

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This account is alleged by User:Mackensen to be a sockpuppet of User:PromX1. This is a legitimate account for legitimate reasons as can be seen from my editing history. If you examine my contribution you will see that I have made contructive edits. I don't care what this admin's problem is with the user as long as he does not involve me in it. This admin claims a checkuser but there is no reference to the request or to it being done. The logs indicate that this PromX1 user was blocked 23:20, 29 May 2007 and I was blocked 23:52, 29 May 2007, only 32 minutes thereafter. There also does not seem to be any sockpuppet list that I and this PromX1 are on.

This admin is not following policy and is actively trying to bury this issue. I wish to have this account unblocked. It is a legitimate user account created for legitimate editing purposes as anyone who checks my edits can see. I will also settle for a puplic apology from this "admin" at this stage.

Decline reason:

Mackensen is indeed a checkuser - he may act as such independent any request to do so on his own authority. If you wish to dispute this block I suggest you contact the Arbitration Committee as he advised in the block summary - they can be emailed at <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> — WjBscribe 01:42, 9 July 2007 (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.

WJBscribe: He does not have the authority to review a block in a dispute he is involved in. Mackensen has done the following:

1. Did not give a reason for the block.
2. Did not respond to comment on the block.
3. Did not respond to email.
4. Did not state a claimed arbcom case.
5. Did not give any reference to a checkuser or a sockpuppet list I am supposedly on.
6. Vandalised my user page and is actively attempting to prevent removal of vandalism.
7. Gave the impression of reviewing a block he has a conflict of interest in.

Mackensen is actively trying to silence his conduct in this matter. He is not fit to have admin priveleges if this issue comes to arbcom. -Biophase 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen has given you a reason for the block - he has identified you as being a of PromX1. He is both a checkuser and a member of ArbCom. He is not required to reference you to particular requests or cases - there are good reasons why these sometimes are done off-wiki. He has not vandalised your page but tagged it according to his findings that you are a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. If you wish to contest his decision or have his actions reviewed you may have recourse to ArbCom though the email address I provided above. WjBscribe 02:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen has only now given a supposed reason after I had to wait for a month so I won't be sympathetic to him. His "tagging" is vandalism as he has refused discussion and comment on the issue and there is no valid reason to do so. I will take this matter to the arbcom and ask that he be removed from his "duties" as that appears to be the last resort.-Biophase 02:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your prerogative. WjBscribe 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)