 | This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of DeFacto (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |  |
Leadfoot90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I request an independent investigation exclding LFaraone. Further request he reveal any conflicts of interest. I suspect a pattern of collusion between OrangeMike , Hoary , and this user after I made comments concerning [redacted].
I requested that he and anyone else who campaigns for forced metrication in the United Kingdom. A pattern emerges where the same team of individuals seems to be actively lumping anyone who is not pro-forced metrication in as a "sockpuppet of defacto." Despite obvious evidence, like my IP address, tahat I am NOT defacto, I am still banned as a sockpuppet? How many other innocent people are his "sockpuppets?" never given so much as an opportunity to even mount a defence? This shows a serious issue with corruption at higher levels if such a transparent attempt at controlling key articles can utilise this-counter vandalism feature to suppress the views of anyone that doesn't come from a paricular viewpoint. I also let a comment on LFaraone's page under Leadfoot100 because my ability to comment has been suppressed. It will be interesting to see if it is dleted too, for telling the truth.
Whenever I mention Martinvl that gives administrators the right to deletewithout any record existing, my posts? This is serious abuse of power, and shows that certain individuals seem to enjoy privileged protected status and are able to add political bias to their subjects of interst. How many of defacto's other "sockpuppets" are in fact innocent bystanders whose views aren't "acceptable?" If this place wishes to avoid becoming the same sort of organ as conservapaedia, it seriously needs to re-evaluate a neutral point of view. ALL of my work seems fair game for outright reversion, regardless of validity.
I notice that all my work has disappeared, including an attempt to present British Weights and Measures association in neutral viewpoint. UK Metric association is an "advocacy group" but British Weights and measures association is a pressure group? Really? This reversion shows that there is an organised attempt at presenting issues from a single viewpoint rather than one that is neutral. Known contributors who have a personal interest in these issues are attempting to undermine the neutrality of wikipaedia, and they are willing to ban anyone and lump them together as "sockpuppets" who doesn't share their views. Far be it for me to let a good story get in the way of the facts, namely my IP address. Not surprising this site is run by a bunch of lawyers. The fact's don't matter as much as the sources and citations and paperwork.
Decline reason:
One open unblock request at a time, please (And do read and consider WP:TLDR and WP:WALLS, as well). — Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (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.
I hadn't intended to post more thanone unblock request. However, declining this request merely slows the process. Could they instead be merged into one?
Leadfoot90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Further, I would like to point out that there was absolutely no investigation done, whatsoever. This course of action was taken automatically. The ONLY similarity that i can see is that I stated taht it would not be appropriate for any pro-metrication advocates, [redacted] to comment as to the merits of Active Resistance to Metrication's inclusion as an article. This information was immediately suppressed, and I was blocked without a proper investigation, not even a kangaroo court. I have found no evidence that defacto ever even edited Active Resistance to Metrication, which was my only substantive contribution to WIkipedia so far. So, based on this, it appears that common knowledge of [redacted] is enough "evidence" to have someone blocked as a sockpuppet, despite other evidence that should be clearly indicated if you check my IP address.
Decline reason:
All right, after reading this one and your comments and threats below, I am taking the extraordinary step of not only declining this second unblock request myself as well but revoking your talk page access. You have responded to an admonition to not out people by ... threatening to do it anyway. On top of that you have been uncivil and failed to assume good faith. You're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. And just because I have this smidgen of fairness to respond to your laughable defenses against the sockpuppetry charges, it's not just the IP address. There are so many other things that give it away. People whose first resort is to that remind me of little children covering their faces and telling all the adults present they're invisible. It would almost be cute if you didn't have an adult-size measure of jerkitude in the process. When they say "we don't have the same IP address", what it means in plain English is "Why do you have to catch me I thought I was so clever using the computer down at the library its not fair for you to be so smart I got caught WHINE WHINE WHINE". Oh, and apart from all that, as we say on this side of the pond today, happy Thanksgiving! Hey, you might even be celebrating it ... anywhere you go, the turkey is already there 
. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2013 (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.
- Someone else will respond to your unblock request, but please note that continuing to violate WP:OUTING will result in revocation of talkpage access. Please attempt to assert your requests without reposting the removed content. LFaraone 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You deleted all my work and labelled me a sockpuppet withOUT any investigation, A-hole and I cannot mention Martinvl's conflict of interest? This should be part of the investigation. How is it "outing" someone who has a handle that is an abbreviation of his own name?
You're not even going to communicate me except to conceal Martinvl's conflict of interest. You are trying to cover upt he truth. It is not acceptable for someone with a conflict of interest to attempt to supress views that counter their own.
This is a key point to my objections. How can you come on my OWN TALK PAGE and suppress the truth? Martinvl is posting under his own name. I am not publishing his name (he already has himself) his place of business, his residence, his employer, or anything on that list.
Stay the F off of my page and don't further involve yourself here. I have already reported you for attempting to supress and control information and bypassing the neutral nature of Wikipaedia.
You couldn't give me the Fing time of day before, but you are going ot come on here and deliberately obfuscate a serious COI issue. What personal connection do YOU have with this issue? Do you have personal relationships with the parties concerned? Is taht why you are attempting to conceal their campaign issues?
Whether it is listed here or not, you can rest assured that I am reporting MartinVl's affiliations to your higher-ups.