User talk:Doc9871

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

Indefinitely blocked

Because CU evidence proves you have repeatedly edited logged out in violation of your topic ban, and your actions recently logged in; I have no choice but to conclude that you have no intention of abiding by your topic ban. As such, I have blocked your account indefinitely, with the first year being logged as an Arbitration Enforcement sanction. Courcelles (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you even use CU to investigate me? I told you who I was. I've never tried to avoid scrutiny. It's overkill. Seriously. Doc talk 08:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, to make sure you weren't being joe jobbed. Suffice to say, you weren't. Courcelles (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a SPI on me that is not linked? I'm a sock of myself? Why was a CU initiated? Doc talk 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess. Politics? Where's the CU authorization? Doc talk 08:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I think WP:CHECK applies in circumstances like these: CheckUser data may be used to investigate, prevent, or respond to... Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. Check it. Unfortunately the little comedy you played with IHTS attracted attention. I mean, it attracted mine, and I'm nothing-so imagine what it said to the higher echelons...? Anyway, good luck. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, I tells ya. All around. Doc talk 09:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've hunted and busted so many actual bad-faith users that needed CU. I've created SPI reports. I never thought I'd have a CU run on me and be blocked. It's surreal. Doc talk 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been tried, convicted, and sentenced. And then sentenced further... without even a statement submitted in my defense. Justice. Doc talk 10:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Davey2116 (talk · contribs) is, or why they are possibly tagged as a sock of me. Absurd. I am the last user to sock around here. Coffee (talk · contribs)'s "behavioral evidence" is 100% wrong. This is not okay. You're gonna get a lot of cases cleared with this one. Doc talk 11:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence is a serious personal attack; I'm not sure if a CU got done on Davey. But above, @Courcelles: (pinging for clarification?), says that their CU block only concerns editing logged out-no mention of the Davey a/c, and I'm not sure where the connection came from? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, Coffee has made the connection by themselves. I don't see what behavioural evidence links Doc and Davey except the AP2 editing area. I certainly don't see any evidence of an actual CU doing anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Tell me I'm reading this wrong- it suggests no direct overlap at all. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 - Geez, I even double checked to see if you'd accidentally added date limits. There is zero overlap. I was looking at contribs for any kind of connection, and all that I can see is that Doc has edited Talk:Donald Trump and Davey2116 has edited Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2018 Q1. That seems to be the closest the two accounts come into contact. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for a CU though. Doc talk 11:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's sarcastic, but, Coffee isn't a CU. They can't perform a CU check. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The system is what it is. No one is to blame. Doc talk 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually open up a ton of cases for scrutiny. The idea that I have socked is absurd to anyone that knows me. Doc talk 11:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is anyone CU'ing me at all?! It's not my first day!!! I thought I was a "good" guy!!! 1984 shit now. Doc talk 11:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False Sock Tag

I have no idea who Davey2116 (talk · contribs) is, and I want the tag removed. Doc talk 12:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doc talk 12:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Now can we move my block back to where it was before the false sock puppetry nonsense? Two weeks, I believe? I did't do anything to exacerbate the original block for the topic ban violation, and I accept the original block without complaint. Doc talk 13:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the blocking admin, but I'm confident that the above mistaken identity had no influence on the length of your block, especially considering that that block was placed some 34 hours after yours. —DoRD (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that my block was extended from two weeks to indefinite solely based on this sock allegation, which has been disproven. My indefinite block (for alleged socking) should be vacated, and my original block of two weeks (for a topic ban vio) should therefore be reinstated forthwith. Doc talk 15:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, you're not fooling anybody with that one. Your block had absolutely nothing to do with the Davey account that was blocked yesterday after your indef. ~Awilley (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any edit after I was blocked for 2 weeks. I don't know who Davey is, or why my block should be extended when I made no edits to justify any block extension. Doc talk 15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, your indef had nothing to do with Coffee's block of Davey. You have chosen to flaunt your active sanctions, both logged in and not, this is the consequence. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no edit after my block. You falsely used CU and then extended my block for no good reason. I wasn't disrupting anything between my block and your railroading. Doc talk 15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]